Court Opinion

ID: 2964170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:41.182359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.059604
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 25, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1055

                                BOSTEC SYSTEMS, INC.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                 [Hon. W. Arthur Garrity, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________
                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]       
                                            ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Andrew Schultz, with whom Michael S. Field, Dimitrios Ioannidis,
             ______________            ________________  ___________________
        Beth Pirro Cook and Field & Schultz were on brief for appellant.
        _______________     _______________
             Andrew W. Goldwater, with whom Friedman & Kaplan LLP was on brief
             ___________________            _____________________
        for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.  Appellant  Bostec Systems, Inc. challenges
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          a  summary  judgment  dismissing   its  breach  of  contract  and

          promissory estoppel claims against Mastercard International, Inc.

          Bostec argues that  a trialworthy factual  dispute remains as  to

          whether Mastercard promised to require its members  to purchase a

          machine     capable  of affixing tamper-evident,  paper signature
                                                            _____

          panels to  credit cards    were Bostec to design and develop such

          a  machine.   Following  plenary  review,  Laura  Thorn, Ltd.  v.
                                                     __________________

          Alletzhauser, 71 F.3d 991, 993 n.4 (1st Cir. 1995), after careful
          ____________

          consideration  of  Massachusetts law  and  the  entire record  as

          illuminated by  the briefs  and oral  argument, we  are persuaded

          that  the district court correctly concluded, as a matter of law,

          that  though  Mastercard     encouraged  Bostec's   developmental

          efforts,  it  made  no  express or  implicit  promise  that could

          support either a contract claim or a promissory estoppel claim.1

                    Viewed  in  the light  most  favorable  to Bostec,  the

          evidence  reveals  that  Mastercard  broached its  idea  for  the

          development of a signature panel machine to Bostec in March 1987,

          and monitored Bostec's progress before finally approving a Bostec

          paper  signature  panel  prototype  in  December  1991.    Bostec

                              
          ____________________

               1See Rhode Island  Hosp. Trust Nat'l  Bank v. Varadian,  647
                ___ _____________________________________    ________
          N.E.2d 1174,  1179 (Mass. 1995)  ("[A]n action based  on reliance
          [e.g., promissory  estoppel] is equivalent to  a contract action,
          and  the party  bringing  such  an  action  must  prove  all  the
          necessary  elements  of a  contract other  than consideration.");
          Simons v. American Dry Ginger Ale Co., 140 N.E.2d 649, 652 (Mass.
          ______    ___________________________
          1957)  ("All  the   essential  terms  of   a  contract  must   be
          sufficiently definite  so  that  the  nature and  extent  of  the
          obligations  of  the  parties  can  be  ascertained."   (citation
          omitted)).

                                          2

          concedes, however, that no enforceable promise was made prior  to

          Mastercard's March 1990 letter, which confirmed its commitment to

          require Mastercard members to use a "new secure signature panel."

          Instead, Bostec contends that it is the entire course of dealings

          between the parties that evinces a promise  to require Mastercard

          members to use only  the paper signature panel machine  developed
                                   _____

          by Bostec at Mastercard's suggestion.  

                    Neither the course of  dealings between the parties nor

          the  March  1990  letter   generated  a  trialworthy  claim  that

          Mastercard made a "sufficiently  definite" promise to require its

          members  to  use,  or   acquire,  only  a  tamper-evident,  paper
                                                                      _____

          signature panel on its credit cards.  See Simons v. American  Dry
                                                ___ ______    _____________

          Ginger  Ale Co., 140 N.E.2d 649, 652  (Mass. 1957); supra note 1.
          _______________                                     _____

          In   November   1988,   Mastercard  sent   Bostec   (and  others)

          specifications, explicitly permitting signature panels to be made

          from   paper,  mylar,   film,  or   other  comparable   material.

          Mastercard informed Bostec in May 1989 that it would  not grant a

          monopoly  to any one equipment supplier.  Finally, the March 1990

          letter     confirming  Mastercard's commitment  to a  "new secure

          signature panel"     cannot  support a reasonable  inference that

          Mastercard promised to require its secure signature panels  to be

          made from paper  to the exclusion of  all other materials, or  to

          require its  members to  purchase Bostec's paper  signature panel
                                                     _____

          machine.  Absent evidence of a sufficiently definite promise, the

          Bostec claims fail as a matter of law.  See supra note 1.
                                                  ___ _____

                    Affirmed.  
                    Affirmed.  
                    ________

                                          3