Opinion
No. 11–P–1201.
2012-06-13
Steven deBETTENCOURT v. Thomas E. ARONSON & another.
By the Court (RUBIN, BROWN & HANLON, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
As described in the decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court Department, the violations of G.L. c. 142A found here did not cause any economic injury to the defendants. Nonetheless, we may assume without deciding that as in Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (1985), the defendants were entitled to a written contract that contained the legally required information that was, in violation of c. 142A, § 2, not included in this case (including the total cost of the work, the schedule of payments, and so forth). We may further assume without deciding that, in light of the violation of those legal entitlements, if the defendants had met the procedural requirements of G.L. c. 93A, they would have been entitled to trebled nominal damages and attorney's fees under that statute.
In this case, however, the defendants' demand letter-even assuming it was sent and received, facts contested by the plaintiff—did not mention the violations of G.L. c. 142A that were found by the trial judge. The failure to send a demand letter seeking redress for those violations is fatal to their c. 93A counterclaim. The plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied.
Decision and order of Appellate Division affirmed.
Doing business as SMD Construction Co.