explaining that plaintiff must show “causal connection between the deception and the loss and that the loss was foreseeable as a result of the deception”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that plaintiff must show “causal connection between the deception and the loss and that the loss was foreseeable as a result of the deception”
- noting that plaintiffs were injured by buying cars that were defective, even if they had not malfunctioned, because plaintiffs paid more for cars than they were actually worth
- explaining that if properly alleged, a claim that plaintiffs own vehicles with defective outside door handle in violation of federal safety regulations would support a cause of action under Ch. 93A because plaintiffs would have paid for more than they received
- holding that “a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cowin, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur *637 in the court’s opinion except for that portion of the disposition that provides that Counts I and IV of the amended complaint are to be dismissed without prejudice. As the court observes, the plaintiffs, if their allegations are true, had a cause of action under G. L. c. 93A for the diminution in value of their vehicles resulting from an alleged unfair or deceptive act or practice. For whatever reason, they failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy applicable pleading requirements. That failure was not because of any error of the motion judge or any surprises visited on the plaintiffs by this court’s opinion. I therefore see no principled reason why this action should not be consigned the same fate as that of any proceeding in which the initial pleading on its face entitles the claimant to no relief. .