To Infinity and Beyond: When a Business Contract is Incomplete

Parties who decide to do business with each other must be very careful to ensure that the agreement between them contains all the important terms, especially the duration of the contract over which the parties expect to be in business with each other. A recent case from the Massachusetts Appeals Court confirms that in situations where a contract does not have an express duration term, the parties’ intent and circumstances dictate the reasonable duration of the contract, and one party cannot terminate the contract at-will.

Fall 2024 Newsletter

Navigating Joint Employer Liability in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently affirmed that a management company providing comprehensive services to a car dealership qualifies as a “joint employer,” subject to potential liability for Wage Act violations. This ruling in Tran v. Jennings Road Management Corp., et al. sets a significant precedent for how joint employer status is determined under Massachusetts law.

Summer 2024 Newsletter

Splitting up in Massachusetts: Who Keeps the Pet?

Who gets custody of “Teddy Bear”? That question was answered in recent decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court regarding the ownership of Teddy Bear, a Pomeranian dog. Lyman v. Lanser, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 787 (2024). In its ruling, which granted joint custody of Teddy Bear to an unmarried couple who had split up, the court relied upon important principles of contract law which extend far beyond the specific facts of the case.

Spring 2024 Newsletter

The Wedding is Off, and Who is at Fault? Let the Court Decide!

In the case of a broken engagement, who gets to keep the rings? This was the question the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed in Johnson v. Settino, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 291 (2023).

In Johnson, the plaintiff had given his fiancé a $70,000 engagement ring and purchased two wedding bands. After he broke off the engagement, and his now ex-fiancé refused to return the rings, he filed a lawsuit to get them back.

Fall 2023 Newsletter

Real Estate Brokers May Get A Commission Even Without A Written Contract

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that a real estate broker could obtain damages stemming from a breach of contract of an oral agreement, even where the broker did not produce the final closing.

Spring 2023 Newsletter

No Double Dipping: Putting the Brakes on Acceleration Clauses in Commercial Leases

A term in a contract, even if clearly stated, does not guarantee that a court will enforce it when a dispute arises between the parties. A recent decision by the Appeals Court on the issue of rent acceleration clauses may substantially affect commercial landlords and tenants.

February 2023 Newsletter

If You Want Your Attorney’s Fees and Costs of Litigation, Make Sure Your Contract Clearly Calls for It

Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Superior Court held that the mere existence of an indemnification provision in a contract does not authorize the court to award attorney’s fees to the party that prevails in litigation. Instead, a clear and unambiguous “fee shifting provision” must be included in the contract before a court can require the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s fees.

Fall 2022 Newsletter

Dot Your I’s and Cross Your T’s Before Terminating an Employee

Employers in Massachusetts should be aware of a recent case out of the Supreme Judicial Court that cautions employers to ensure that before terminating any employee, full payment is made for all unpaid wages on or before the date of termination. A failure to do so may subject the employer to multiple damages under the Massachusetts Wage Act.

June 2022 Newsletter

Employers Cannot Terminate Employees Merely For Filing a Rebuttal in Their Personnel File

Early last year, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a controversial ruling that an employer could terminate an at-will employee for exercising the right to file a rebuttal in their personnel file. Employers should be aware that the Supreme Judicial Court has since reversed that ruling in Terence Meehan v. Medical Information Technology, Inc., protecting the rights of employees to file rebuttals without the threat of termination.

February 2022 Newsletter

Domestic Violence Leave Statute Allows Time Off for Brand New Employees

Employers should be aware of a new decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that defines two key concepts concerning the Domestic Violence and Abuse Leave Act (aka “DVLA” or the “Act”). The Act prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees who take time off to address issues arising from domestic violence or abuse. In the new decision, the Court clarifies the definition of an “employee” for the purposes of DVLA and confirms how employees may assert their rights under the Act.

October 2021 Newsletter