TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lusalon, Inc. v. Thomas O'Connor & Co.

Lusalon, Inc. v. Thomas O'Connor and Company, Inc.

Lusalon, Inc. v. Thomas O'Connor & Co., 325 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Appeals Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 9, 1975
Citations
325 N.E.2d 5993 Mass. App. Ct. 734

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

This action of contract to recover damages for the defendant’s repudiation of a contract to employ the plaintiff to provide the labor, material and equipment necessary to the performance of the masonry work involved in the construction of a private hospital is here on the plaintiff’s exception to the court’s direction of a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s opening statement. The contract was oral, and the judge based his action on the provisions of the Statute of Frauds found in G. L. c. 106, § 2-201(1) (as appearing in St. 1957, c. 765, § 1), and in G. L. c. 259, § 1, Fifth, both of which had been pleaded by the defendant. 1. A contract of the type described above and in the opening was not considered to fall within the provisions of the since repealed G. L. c. 106, § 6(1) (see Saugus v. B. Perini & Sons, Inc. 305 Mass. 403, 404-405 [1940]), and (as the defendant itself now argues in its brief) no sound reason has been advanced why such a contract should fall within the present G. L. c. 106, § 2-201(1). Contrast Providence Granite Co. Inc. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc. 362 Mass. 888 (1972). 2. Accepting the statements in the opening as true and reading them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Matranga v. West End Tile Co. Inc. 357 Mass. 194, 196 [1970]), we construe the contract described by counsel for the plaintiff as one to perform and pay for the physical work described in the plans, the specifications, the “price schedules,” and the plaintiff’s letter of May 18, 1966, and as one which did not include a one-year guarantee such as that relied on by the defendant to invoke the provisions of G. L. c. 259, § 1, Fifth. To the contrary, counsel declined an express invitation to state that any such guarantee formed a part of the contract between the parties. 3. On a like reading of the opening the contract did not contain any other provisions of the type relied upon by the defendant to defeat the action at this preliminary stage. The plaintiff’s exception is sustained, and the case is to stand for trial or other appropriate proceedings.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 219782026peak 1978 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Loranger Construction Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co.374 N.E.2d 306 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
  2. Bedford Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Milano377 N.E.2d 438 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Bedford Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Milano377 N.E.2d 438 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
  2. Loranger Construction Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co.374 N.E.2d 306 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Town of Saugus v. B. Perini & Sons, Inc., 26 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 1940) 21
Providence Granite Co. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc., 291 N.E.2d 159 (Mass. 1972) 10
Matranga v. West End Tile Co., 257 N.E.2d 433 (Mass. 1970) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list