Entrialgo v. Twin City Dodge, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 August 1975
• Citation: 368 Mass. 812,333 N.E.2d 202
• Parties: Esther ENTRIALGO v. TWIN CITY DODGE, INC., et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 202

333 N.E.2d 202

368 Mass. 812

Esther ENTRIALGO

v.TWIN CITY DODGE, INC., et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Argued April 10, 1975.

Decided Aug. 20, 1975.

Francis D. Morrison, Fitchburg, and Jeffrey M. Friedman, Lowell, for plaintiff.

John W. Connors, Worcester, for Worcester County National Bank.

Kendall Burford, Worcester, for Twin City Dodge, Inc.

Before TAURO, C.J., and BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The plaintiff purchased a used car from Twin City Dodge, Inc.(Twin City), on August 23, 1972, and signed a 'Retail Instalment Contract--Security Agreement--Disclosure Statement.'The contract was assigned to the Worcester County National Bank.The contract did not disclose the annual percentage rate of the finance charge and was not signed by either defendant.Subsequently, the plaintiff sent a G.L. c. 93A, § 9(3), demand letter to Twin City alleging generally that the car was defective; the deceptive trade practice claimed was that representations had been made which had deceptively influenced the plaintiff to purchase the car.The demand letter was not answered and suit under G.L. c. 93A, § 9, was commenced.The complaint alleged deceptive misrepresentation, a breach of warranties under G.L. c. 106, §§ 2--314, 2--316A, and further alleged violations of certain Truth-in-Lending statutes specifically G.L. c. 255BandG.L. c. 140C.The matter was tried to a master; the master found violations of the credit disclosure statutes in the failure to disclose the annual rate of interest and the lack of signatures to the contract.However, the master found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation and in a supplemental summary of the evidence stated that there was no evidence to indicate a breach of warranty at the time of the sale.The plaintiff moved for a recommittal of the report to the master for the taking of further evidence and for an additional summary of evidence with respect to defects discovered after the date of the sale.The Suerior Court judge refused to recommit, confirmed the report and dismissed the bill of complaint.We affirm.First, with respect to the credit disclosure violations, no relief is available under G.L. c. 93A because of the failure to complain of this practice in the c. 93A, § 9(3), demand letter.A demand letter listing the specific deceptive practices claimed is a prerequisite to suit and as a special element must be alleged and proved.Slaney v. Westwood...