Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1985 |
Citation | 393 Mass. 622,473 N.E.2d 662 |
Parties | BUSHKIN ASSOCIATES, INC. et al. 1 v. RAYTHEON COMPANY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Alan D. Rose, Boston (R. Reed Baer, Boston, with him), for plaintiffs.
Neal C. Tully, Boston (Dana C. Hanson, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Before WILKINS, LIACOS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
We deal with questions certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as amended, 382 Mass. 700 (1981). The principal question involves a conflict of laws issue: whether the Massachusetts or the New York Statute of Frauds should be applied in this action involving an alleged oral agreement between the plaintiff Bushkin, a New York resident, and his New York corporation, on the one hand, and the defendant Raytheon Company (Raytheon), a Massachusetts based corporation, on the other. An action based on such an oral agreement would be barred under the New York Statute of Frauds (N.Y.Gen.Oblig.Law § 5-701[a] [McKinney 1978 & Cum.Supp.1984] ), but would not be barred under the Massachusetts Statute of Frauds (G.L. c. 259, § 1).
The Court of Appeals understandably concluded that it was not "confident of the choice that would be made by the Supreme Judicial Court in this important case." Our cases have not indicated with any certainty how this court would resolve the choice-of-law question presented to us (nor indeed the other questions certified to us, which concern G.L. c. 93A).
The three questions certified are:
The Court of Appeals appended to its certification "the summary of relevant facts as set forth by the district court in its opinion." We quote those facts in the paragraphs immediately hereafter.
The action came before the Court of Appeals on Bushkin's appeal following a Federal District Court judge's allowance of Raytheon's motion for summary judgment. In allowing that motion, the judge recognized that, in this diversity action, his obligation was to apply the choice-of-law rules of Massachusetts. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). He concluded that this court would not apply the principle that the choice of law would be governed by the place of contracting and concluded further that the principles stated in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) were "not an effective means for resolving the choice of law problem in this case." In his view, "[d]etermining the projected scope of a law by application of an expanded interest analysis" helped to resolve the choice-of-law issue. Applying this analysis, he ruled that New York had a strong interest in protecting defendants against unfounded claims, even when New York brokers and finders sued non-New Yorkers. He said "Massachusetts, in contrast, has at most a minimal interest in applying its law to this case." He concluded that Bushkin could not avoid the laws of New York and should not benefit from forum shopping, and held that "[e]xpanded interest analysis clearly tips the scale in favor of applying New York law to the facts of this case." 3
The judge further concluded that Bushkin's G.L. c. 93A claim merely restated his contract claim, believing that it was based solely on Raytheon's failure to abide by its agreement with Bushkin and its use, without payment, of information acquired pursuant to that agreement. Because the contract was unenforceable, it was his view that Bushkin's G.L. c. 93A claims must necessarily fail. He thus allowed Raytheon's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Bushkin's complaint.
We conclude that the alleged oral fee agreement is not barred by the New York Statute of Frauds because the law of Massachusetts determines the enforceability of the alleged oral agreement. We further decide that Raytheon is entitled to the exemption from G.L. c. 93A provided by G.L. c. 93A, § 3(1)(b )(i), because Bushkin's G.L. c. 93A claim is not based on transactions and actions that occurred primarily in Massachusetts. We thus answer question three in the affirmative. Because Raytheon is exempt from liability under G.L. c. 93A, we need not answer question two, which inquires whether G.L. c. 93A applies to Bushkin's allegations of deceptive acts and practices.
The plaintiff does not contend that his oral agreement would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Logan Equipment Corp. v. Simon Aerials, Inc.
...would suffer injury within the Commonwealth." 20 Mass. App.Ct. at 249 n. 7, 479 N.E.2d 728; but see Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 393 Mass. 622, 638-39, 473 N.E.2d 662 (1985) (finding c. 93A inapplicable in part because plaintiff's losses were sustained in New York). More recent......
-
Sterling Suffolk Racecourse v. Burrillville Racing
...actions complained of "occurred primarily and substantially within the commonwealth." See, e.g., Bushkin Assocs. v. Raytheon Co., 393 Mass. 622, 637-39, 473 N.E.2d 662, 671-72 (1985); Makino, U.S.A. v. Metlife Capital Credit, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 302, 308-11, 518 N.E.2d 519, 522-24 (1988). The F......
-
Flotech, Inc. v. EI Du Pont de Nemours Co.
...The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has recently addressed this issue. Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon, 393 Mass. 622, 632-635, 473 N.E.2d 662 (1985). Guided by the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws (1971), § 6(2), the Bushkin Court details a process......
-
Fine v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 3:19-cv-30067-KAR
...issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties.’ " Id. at 563 (quoting Bushkin Assocs., Inc. v. Raytheon Co. , 393 Mass. 622, 473 N.E.2d 662, 669 (1985) ).In identifying the State with the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties [und......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...W.R. Grace v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 555 N.E.2d 214, 221 (Mass. 1990); Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 473 N.E.2d 662, 668–669 (Mass. 1985) (in the absence of a choice of law agreement by parties, contract rights “are determined by the local law of the state which, wit......
-
DEFERRING TO FOREIGN COURTS.
...may be particular issues on which the interests of lex loci delicti are not so strong."); see also Bushkin Assocs., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 473 N.E.2d 662, 668-69 (Mass. 1985) (describing Massachusetts' approach to choice of law as not "tie[d]... to any specific choice-of-law doctrine" and as......
-
Chapter 3
...W.R. Grace v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 555 N.E.2d 214, 221 (Mass. 1990); Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 473 N.E.2d 662, 668–669 (Mass. 1985) (in the absence of a choice of law agreement by parties, contract rights “are determined by the local law of the state which, wit......
-
Comments on the Roundtable Discussion of Choice of Law - Russell J. Weintraub
...Planning, Ltd. v. Daystrom, Inc., 248 N.E.2d 576 (N.Y. 1969). 83. Id. at 582. 84. Id. at 583. 85. Bushkin Assocs. v. Raytheon Co., 473 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Mass. 1985) (rejecting "the Empire State's imperial reach"). 86. Transcript, supra note 6, at 683-84. 87. Id. at 682. 88. Id. at 682-83. 89......