“[The plaintiff] is claiming a G.L.c. 93A violation with respect to a product he did not even purchase. His pursuit of such a clam violates the principle that G.L.c. 93A, §9, does not authorize purely vicarious suits by self-constituted private attorneys-general” [quotations omitted]
How later courts described this case
- “[The plaintiff] is claiming a G.L.c. 93A violation with respect to a product he did not even purchase. His pursuit of such a clam violates the principle that G.L.c. 93A, §9, does not authorize purely vicarious suits by self-constituted private attorneys-general” [quotations omitted]
- no injury under G. L. c. 93A, § 9 [1], for defective product offered in rental contract when consumer did not purchase or use product
- “we interpret consumer protection statutes broadly to effectuate their remedial purposes”
- “We interpret statutes as a whole to produce internal consistency”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Greaney, J.
(concurring, with whom Spina, J., joins). I concur in the result in this case because the plaintiff did not purchase a collision damage waiver. I do not join in this opinion to the extent that it implies approval of the result and reasoning in Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, ante 790 (2006), and I do not do so for the reasons stated in my dissent therein.