CONTRACT. $______ RECOVERY

• Pages: 14-15

of the plaintiff’s contractual obligation, the plaintiff

would furnish him with extensive documentation re-

garding prior negotiations and that it ultimately be-

came evident that such documentation would not

be not forthcoming.

The plaintiff countered that there was no evidence

that such documentation was promised to be fur-

nished, and further maintained that it was the nature

of the business that often such documentation did

not exist.

The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the full

amount sought which was $92,107.

REFERENCE

Integrated Capital Strategies, LLC , et al. vs. Granite

State Strategies, et al.; Judge Steven Houran, 05-28-

15.

Attorney for plaintiff: James F. Laura of McGrath Law

Firm in Concord, NH.

$663,774 JUDGMENT

Breach of Contract – Chapter 93A claims – Breach

of warranty – Yacht sold by defendant to plaintiff

was deficient – Boom fell off mast – Hydraulic

problems rendering boat unfit for use.

USDC, District of Massachusetts

In this matter, the plaintiff alleged that the

defendant breached its contract and its warranty

with regard to the yacht sold to the plaintiff. The

defendant denied the allegations and disputed

the plaintiff’s claim of damages.

The plaintiff purchased a 70 foot yacht from the de-

fendant. Under the terms of the contract, the boat

was to be delivered at the closing in sound condition

with all systems and equipment operating safely and

properly. On the day of the closing, some five hours

later, the boat suffered a hydraulic failure and had to

return to port. Five days after the closing of title to the

yacht, the boom fell from the mast while it was at sea

sailing to St. Thomas. The hydraulic system in the

yacht also was not working properly, requiring multiple

repairs. There were also other issues including windlass

breakdowns, electronic throttle failures, an inoperable

generator, failure of both water pumps on the boat

and malfunction of three of the four vacuflush heads.

Ultimately, the plaintiff was required to replace the en-

tire mast. The plaintiff brought suit against the defen-

dant alleging breach of contract and warranty, as

well as bringing a claim under the state’s consumer

fraud statute, Chapter 93A.

The defendant denied the allegations and disputed

the claims of breach and deceptive trade practices.

The matter proceeded to trial. The jury deliberated

and returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the

breach of warranty and breach of contract claims.

The matter then proceeded before the court on a

bench trial on the Chapter 93A claims.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court found in favor

of the defendant on the Chapter 93A claims and en-

tered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in accordance

with the jury’s verdict. The court awarded the sum of

$663,774 with pre-judgment interest.

REFERENCE

Destiny Yachts LLC vs. Hylas Yachts Inc. Case no.

1:2011-cv-11814; Judge Jennifer C. Boal, 09-24-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Warren D. Hutchinson of

LeClair Ryan in Boston, MA.

$1,000 RECOVERY

Contract – Assignment of claim – Plaintiff sought

balanceofmoniesdueforrepairofproperty

damage.

Hartford County, CT

In this matter, the plaintiff auto body facility

brought suit seeking the balance of monies due

from the defendant for damages to a vehicle

involved in a collision with the defendant’s

vehicle. The owner of the vehicle damages

assigned her right of claim for the balance of

monies due to the plaintiff. The defendant denied

owing any additional monies above and beyond

that had already been paid by his insurance

company.

The defendant had been the cause of a collision be-

tween his vehicle and another vehicle. The owner of

the vehicle that was damaged had the damage re-

paired by the plaintiff auto body facility. The total cost

of the repair was $9,727, of which the defendant’s in-

surance had paid $7,377, leaving a balance due to

the plaintiff in the amount of $2,350. The plaintiff was

given an assignment by the vehicle owner to pro-

ceed against the defendant personally for the bal-

ance of monies owed to it. The plaintiff brought suit,

seeking the difference owed in the amount of $2,350.

The defendant denied any liability to the plaintiff for

the excess amount. The defendant disputed that the

repairs were necessary.

14 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Volume 31, Issue 7, February 2016 Subscribe Now