automatic defense in Massachusetts

2025As this court recognized in Sheehy, "Massachusetts case law rejects the assertion of 'as is' and like clauses as an automatic defense to allegations of fraud or deceit." Sheehy, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 193 .

1995The Sheehy court followed the line of Massachusetts cases which “rejects the assertion of‘as is’ and like clauses as an automatic defense to allegations of fraud and deceit.” Sheehy, 24 Mass.App.Ct. at 193 .

2008See also Billingham v. Dornemann, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 166, 175 (2002) (language in P&S agreements that seeks to shelter the seller from liability are not an automatic defense to allegations of fraud).

2006Billingham v. Dornemann, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 166, 175 (2002); Sheehy v. Lipton Indus., Inc., 24 Mass.App.Ct. 188, 193 (1987).

2005Sheehy v. Lipton Industries, Inc., 24 Mass.App.Ct. 188,193 (1987) (“[I]n the realm of fact it is entirely possible for a party knowingly to agree that no representations have been made to him, while at the same time believing and relying upon representations which in fact have been made and in fact are false but for which he would not have made the agreement”); see Bates v. Southgate, 308 Mass. 170, 182 (1941).

1995See Bates v. Southgate, 308 Mass. 170 (1941).

2015G.L.c. 93, §28 (“failure to comply with any provision ... of section twenty-four to twenty-seven, inclusive, or any regulation promulgated in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-four shall constitute an unfair and deceptive act or practice under the provisions of paragraph (a) of section two of chapter ninety-three A”); McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109, 117-18 (1st Cir. 2014) (observing that where per se liability arises from the text of an independent statute “it is a clear directive by the Legislature that a violation of that particular statute con

2009There may be situations ... in which evidence of a settlement, or the amount of a settlement, will bear on some issue in the case other than damages, and an automatic rule of exclusion should not be applied.” Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, 603 (1996).

1998As noted above, issue preclusion relates to “an issue of fact or law . . . actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination [of that issue] is essential to the judgment...” Fireside Motors, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 395 Mass. 366, 372 (1985), quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments §27 (1982) (emphasis added).

1976Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 21-26 (1967).