contract made violation in Massachusetts

2002Moreover, no authorities cited by the plaintiff dilute the oft-repeated holdings, in cases such as Massachusetts General Hospital v. Revere, 385 Mass. 772 (1982), and Central Tow Co. v. Boston, 371 Mass. 341 (1976), that “persons dealing with a municipality [or other governmental body] must take notice of limitations of this kind upon the contracting power of the municipality and are bound by them and cannot recover upon contracts attempted to be made in violation of them.” Massachusetts General Hospital, supra, at 775.

1980“If the statute does not declare a contract made in violation of it to be void, and if it is not necessary to hold the contract void in order to accomplish the purposes of the statute, the inference is that it was intended to be directory, and not prohibitory of the contract. . . .” Id., quoting Bowditch v. New England Mut.

1948In Huey v. Passarelli, 267 Mass. 578, 581 , the court quoted from Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79 , at page 84, “It is true that a statute, containing a prohibition and a penalty, makes the act which it punishes unlawful, and the same may be implied from a penalty without a prohibition; but it does not follow that the unlawfulness of the act was meant by the legislature to avoid a contract made in contravention of it.” In Berdos v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills, 209 Mass. 489 , an action for personal injuries by a boy under fourteen employed by the defendant in violation of a statute, recovery by the

1948In Huey v. Passarelli, 267 Mass. 578, 581 , the court quoted from Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79 , at page 84, “It is true that a statute, containing a prohibition and a penalty, makes the act which it punishes unlawful, and the same may be implied from a penalty without a prohibition; but it does not follow that the unlawfulness of the act was meant by the legislature to avoid a contract made in contravention of it.” In Berdos v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills, 209 Mass. 489 , an action for personal injuries by a boy under fourteen employed by the defendant in violation of a statute, recovery by the

1948In Huey v. Passarelli, 267 Mass. 578, 581 , the court quoted from Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79 , at page 84, “It is true that a statute, containing a prohibition and a penalty, makes the act which it punishes unlawful, and the same may be implied from a penalty without a prohibition; but it does not follow that the unlawfulness of the act was meant by the legislature to avoid a contract made in contravention of it.” In Berdos v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills, 209 Mass. 489 , an action for personal injuries by a boy under fourteen employed by the defendant in violation of a statute, recovery by the

1936Flood v. Hodges, 231 Mass. 252 .

1846J. said, “ no principle of law is better settled, than that no action will lie upon a contract made in violation of a statute, or of a principle of the common law.” The cases on this point will also be found cited, and fully considered by the supreme court of Vermont, in Lyon v. Strong, 6 Verm. 219 .

1839It was fully discussed and considered in the case of Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. R. 281 ; and the late Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the Court, remarked, “ that no principle of law is better settled, than that no action will lie upon a contract made in violation of a statute, or of a principle of the common law.” The same principle is laid down in Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. R. 322 , and in Russell v. De Grand, 15 Mass. R. 39 .

1839It was fully discussed and considered in the case of Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. R. 281 ; and the late Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the Court, remarked, “ that no principle of law is better settled, than that no action will lie upon a contract made in violation of a statute, or of a principle of the common law.” The same principle is laid down in Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. R. 322 , and in Russell v. De Grand, 15 Mass. R. 39 .