Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston University

Decision Date15 May 1997
Parties, 118 Ed. Law Rep. 449 LINKAGE CORPORATION v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Michael S. Gardener (John F. Sylvia and Susan M. Finegan, with him), Boston, for defendants.

Peter C. Knight (Hunter O'Hanian and Thomas M. Elcock, with him), Boston, for plaintiff.

Philip Burling, Boston, for Newbury College and others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and ABRAMS, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

GREANEY, Justice.

This dispute arises out of an agreement between Linkage Corporation (Linkage) and Boston University that called for Linkage to create and provide educational, training, and other programs of a technical nature at a satellite facility owned by Boston University. Linkage claims that the agreement was renewed by Boston University and then unlawfully terminated; Boston University claims that the agreement was lawfully terminated and never renewed. Linkage stated its case in the Superior Court by means of a ten-count complaint, which asserted theories of contract and tort liability and violations of G.L. c. 93A, §§ 2(a) and 11. Boston University's answer contained nine counterclaims stating various theories of wrongdoing on Linkage's part and also included a claim under G.L. c. 93A. A judge in the Superior Court granted summary judgment to Boston University on some of Linkage's claims. That judge thereafter recused himself from the case at Linkage's request because, prior to his appointment to the bench, the judge had practiced law with the law firm representing Boston University. The judge next assigned to the case held pretrial conferences, after which he set aside portions of his predecessor's grant of summary judgment. A twenty-nine day jury trial ensued. 1 The jury, in response to a lengthy set of special questions, found Boston University liable for breaches of contract, defamation, wrongful interference with advantageous relations, and violations of G.L. c. 93A. The jury rejected all but one part of Boston University's counterclaims. The judge treated the jury's answers to the special questions on the G.L. c. 93A issues as advisory and subsequently made his own findings of fact and rulings of law on those issues. He also concluded that Boston University had violated G.L. c. 93A, and that Linkage had not. As provided for by G.L. c. 93A, the judge doubled portions of the damages award by the jury and awarded Linkage its attorney's fees and costs. Both before and after his decision on the G.L. c. 93A issues, the judge decided several posttrial motions, eventually allowing judgment not withstanding the verdict on some of Linkage's recovery and denying Boston University a new trial on the remainder. Both parties claimed appeals, and we granted Boston University's application for direct appellate review.

We conclude that the jury's findings that the agreement had been renewed were warranted, and the judge should not have granted Boston University judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the renewal claim. Accordingly, we reinstate the jury's finding on that claim and their award of damages. We also conclude that the jury's finding on Linkage's claim for tortious interference with advantageous business relations may not stand. We uphold the jury's finding on defamation, but vacate their award of damages. We determine that Linkage can be given all the relief it is entitled to under the jury's findings that the agreement had been renewed, and the judge's G.L. c. 93A decision. As a result, we need not deal separately with Linkage's claims for promissory estoppel, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or breach of contract (as applicable to the original agreement between the parties) or with its tort claims, except to indicate the grounds on which we set aside the jury's finding on the tortious interference claim and their award of damages on the defamation claim.

1. Background. We recount at some length the facts that could have been found by the jury. Because of the jury findings in favor of Linkage, we base our recitation on the evidence and inferences most favorable to it.

Linkage was founded in 1988 by Philip Harkins to facilitate the creation of corporate training programs for companies and universities. Harkins, who had a background in both education and computer software for business systems, thought that there was a market for intensive training programs targeted at data processing professionals and software specialists and that, in partnership with a college or university, he could develop a series of educational programs and successfully launch his business.

Boston University became aware of Harkins's plans to start Linkage and expressed an interest in working with Linkage to develop training programs. Boston University had recently acquired the Wang Institute, a facility consisting of an 80,000 square foot building located on 200 acres in Tyngsborough, and had assumed the debt on the facility. 2 Harkins met with J. Joseph Meng, Boston University's vice-president for external programs, and discussed his ideas for training offerings with Meng. Meng was looking for a way to produce a revenue stream that would offset Boston University's considerable overhead on the new facility, and Linkage's programs presented a possible solution to this revenue problem.

Together with Dennis Hart of Boston University's office of general counsel, Harkins and Meng drafted an agreement that covered the operation of Linkage's training programs at the Wang Institute (base agreement). Under the terms of the base agreement, Linkage's performance was to be measured by revenue produced, and Linkage was to receive bonuses for achieving revenue goals. The base agreement also contained a provision restricting both Linkage and Boston University from hiring each other's employees for a period of one year following the termination of the agreement.

At the time that Linkage and Boston University undertook performance of the base agreement, Meng reported to John Silber, the president of Boston University, and to Jon Westling, executive vice-president and Silber's second in command. 3 Silber reviewed the base agreement in draft form and discussed its provisions with Meng, but Meng understood that he had actual authority to negotiate and sign the agreement with Linkage.

Meng and Harkins executed the base agreement on August 1, 1988. Harkins signed on behalf of Linkage, and Meng signed on behalf of Boston University. The base agreement was limited to a term of three years, ending August 1, 1991. Under the base agreement, Linkage was to manage and market educational programs and services at the Wang facility, renamed the Boston University Corporate Education Center (BUCEC). Boston University agreed to provide over-all direction and supervision of BUCEC, and Meng was given final authority and decision-making power over the development and content of all educational activities, the recruitment and appointment of instructional personnel, and promotional activities.

Under the arrangement, Linkage initiated a variety of training programs, conferences, seminars, and other offerings for the corporate market. Boston University also transferred some university courses to BUCEC, which Linkage then managed for the university. Linkage's performance under the base agreement was highly successful: Linkage exceeded its revenue targets during each of the three years of the base agreement's operation, earning bonus payments as provided in the base agreement.

Harkins reported on a monthly basis to Meng, who reviewed every activity within BUCEC and approved Linkage proposals for new programs. Although Linkage was responsible for managing BUCEC programs, both credit and noncredit, it did not have total financial responsibility over the operation. All income generated by BUCEC was paid directly to Boston University, and Meng was responsible for all financial reporting. BUCEC's financial office, headed by a Boston University employee, prepared a monthly accounting for Meng's review, tracking revenues and expenses and documenting how much money was owed by each organization to the other. 4

Another division of Boston University, the Metropolitan College (MET College), 5 ran a training program, professional development seminars (PDS), under contract with another independent training and development company similar to Linkage. When the PDS contract expired at the end of June, 1989, Linkage assumed responsibility for this program. Eventually, Linkage executed a contract with Boston University to run the PDS program (MET College contract). The compensation under the MET College contract differed from Linkage's compensation under the base agreement: under the latter, Boston University received all revenues from the programs and Linkage was paid a fee with incentive bonuses, while under the MET College contract, Linkage received all revenues, paid all expenses, and remitted a 9.15 per cent royalty to Boston University. The MET College contract also provided for six months' prior notice before either party could terminate the agreement and contained a no-hire provision similar to the one in the base agreement. The MET College contract was executed on February 6, 1990. Kenneth Condon, Boston University's assistant treasurer, signed the agreement on behalf of Boston University. 6 As with the programs in operation under the base agreement, Meng supervised Linkage's operation of the PDS programs.

In August, 1990, Harkins and Meng began discussing renewal of the base agreement, scheduled to terminate on August 1, 1991. Harkins wanted to begin negotiations early so that, in the event the base agreement was not renewed, Linkage would have time to replace Boston University as a client. In addition to the renewal of the base agreement, Harkins and Meng negotiated the incorporation of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
287 cases
  • Merrimack Coll. v. KPMG LLP, SJC-12434
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2018
    ...enters into a contract with a third party, the principal will be bound by that contract. See, e.g., Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 4, 17, 679 N.E.2d 191, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015, 118 S.Ct. 599, 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997) (university bound by agreement signed by vice......
  • Laramie v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 15, 2021
    ...judgment.2 1. Background. We recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 4, 679 N.E.2d 191, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015, 118 S.Ct. 599, 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997) (facts are recited in light most favorable t......
  • S. Shore Hellenic Church, Inc. v. Artech Church Interiors, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • April 28, 2016
    ...was found to be acting in the "business context" are vastly dissimilar to those in this case. Cf.Linkage Corp. v. Trs. of Bos. Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 679 N.E.2d 191, 207–09 (1997) (finding a university engaged in "trade or commerce" where it cut a private company out of a lucrative market). Th......
  • Scholz v. Goudreau
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • September 21, 2015
    ...a particular person ... has authority to enter into negotiations or make representations as his agent." Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ. , 425 Mass. 1, 16, 679 N.E.2d 191 (1997) (quoting Hudson v. Massachusetts Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n , 386 Mass. 450, 457, 436 N.E.2d 155 (198......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Unresolved Issues Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 82, 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...103.See, e.g., Milliken and Co. v. Duro Textiles, LLC, 887 N.E.2d 244, 259 (Mass. 2008); Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 679 N.E.2d 191, 206-07, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 (1997); Begelfer v. Najarian, 409 N.E.2d 167, 176 (1980). The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated that "be......
  • The Standard for Determining "unfair Acts or Practices" Under State Unfair Trade Practices Acts
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 80, 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...158, 164 (La. Ct. App. 1995). See also OKLA. STAT. ANN. § 15-752.14 (West 2006). 350 See e.g., Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 679 N.E.2d 191, 209 (Mass. 1997) (affirming finding of liability based on conduct that was unfair, oppressive and deceptive). 351 Robinson v. Toyota Moto......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...819 1602567 ABA-tx-Consumer Vol2 16-03-28 16:23:58 1496 CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW DEVELOPMENTS Linkage Corp. v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 679 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. 1997), 918, 935 Linotype Co. v. Varityper, Inc., 89-4747 1989 WL 94338 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 1989), 1321 Linthicom v. Archambault, 398 N.E.2d......
  • State Consumer Protection Laws
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...in trade or commerce). 1615. Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 316 N.E.2d 748, 752 (Mass. 1974). 1616. Linkage Corp. v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 679 N.E.2d 191, 208 (Mass. 1997) (quoting Poznik v. Mass. Med. Prof’l Ins. Ass’n, 628 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Mass. 1994)); see DeCotis , 316 N.E.2d at 752. 1617. Blackw......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT