Reinhart v. Ragsdale Superstore, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | 070792 |
| Citation | 2008 MBAR 247 |
| Parties | Albert J. Reinhart v. Ragsdale Superstore, Inc. et al.[1] |
| Court | Massachusetts Superior Court |
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Roach, Christine M., J.
This case arises out of the purchase of a used automobile, and the temporary (approximately three-day) delay in the registration of that automobile. The pro se plaintiff Albert J. Reinhart filed his complaint against Ragsdale Superstore, Inc. in fifteen (15) Counts, based on theories of breach of contract breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty fraudulent misrepresentation; conspiracy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; reckless infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; reckless endangerment; violation of G.L.c. 93A; conversion; and trespass to personal property. Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b), Ragsdale now moves for summary judgment on all Counts. As a result of thorough pleading by the parties, the court finds no hearing pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(c)(3) to be necessary. Based on a careful review of all pleadings of record, Ragsdale's motion is ALLOWED in part, and DENIED in part.
Summary judgment is granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the absence of a triable issue. Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14 16-17 (1989). Where as here the opposing party has the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the moving party must demonstrate, "by reference to materials properly in the summary judgment record, unmet by countervailing materials" that the plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of his case. Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 278 (2006) citing Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991).
A fact is only "material" if it would affect the outcome of the proceeding. Carey, 446 Mass. at 278. The mere assertion of a genuine factual dispute by the nonmoving party, "absent factual material upon which the assertion might be proved, is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment." Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. v. City of Springfield, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 108, 113 (2000). However, the court looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether there is "any combination of circumstances... from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the plaintiff." Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47, 56 (1983), 374 Mass. 206, 212 (1978). Reasonable inferences are those based on "probabilities, rather than possibilities" and "not the result of 'mere speculation and conjecture.' " Id.
The following relevant facts are presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Ragsdale is a Massachusetts corporation that runs an automobile dealership in Shrewsbury. On April 26, 2004, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase a used 2002 Chevrolet Prizm ("the vehicle" or "the Prizm") from the defendant. As part of the deal Plaintiff traded his existing vehicle. The purchase and sale agreement provided Plaintiff would pay for a state inspection sticker and registration, and the defendant would transfer plaintiff's registration from the old vehicle to the new, as well as obtain a valid state inspection sticker for the Prizm. Ragsdale agreed to complete this task within seven business days.[2]
Ragsdale did not register the Prizm within the promised time, despite plaintiff's repeated contacts with Ragsdale to remind it of this promise. On the eighth business day, May 4, 2004,[3] Plaintiff rented a car for the day. On May 10, 2004 an employee of Ragsdale left a message on Plaintiff's answering machine informing Plaintiff that he had registered the vehicle. Plaintiff, not wishing to return to Ragsdale's place of business, rented another car and drove to the Registry of Motor Vehicles to obtain a duplicate copy of the registration. Plaintiff had the Prizm inspected, then went to return the rental car. On the way, he collided with the rear of the vehicle in front of him. The vehicles sustained minor damage; no one was injured.
Plaintiff mailed a demand letter to Ragsdale on March 9, 2007, pursuant to G.L.c. 93A, §9. Ragsdale responded in a timely manner, denying all allegations and offering to consider reimbursing the defendant for his rental car. This lawsuit followed.
To recover on a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must show: (1) that a binding agreement existed and was supported by consideration; (2) that Plaintiff was willing and able to perform; (3) that Ragsdale breached the agreement by failing to register the car timely, and (4) that Plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by that breach. Singarella v. Boston, 342 Mass. 385, 386 (1961). When a person purchases a new motor vehicle, he must transfer registration of the vehicle into his name by 5: 00 p.m. of the seventh calendar day after the purchase. G.L.c. 90, §2. The following facts are undisputed.
The parties entered a contract for the purchase and sale of a Chevrolet Prizm, and Plaintiff tendered payment for the vehicle. The contract price included provision for both the registration and state inspection fees. In consideration, Ragsdale undertook to register the vehicle in Plaintiff's name and obtain a valid state inspection sticker. Ragsdale defendant did not have the vehicle registered and inspected within seven days. As a proximate result of this failure of performance, Plaintiff was deprived of the use of his automobile for at least two days. The court finds Plaintiff has established on this record a breach of contract, and is entitled to summary judgment in his favor, on liability only, on Counts 1-3.
The four Counts for breach of contract differ only in the source of damages requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to such damages as are the natural and probable consequence of Ragsdale's breach. Pierce v. Clark, 66 Mass.App.Ct. 912, 914 (2006). Plaintiff may not demand "extraordinary or unforeseen elements of damage," only those logically related to the breach. Id., quoting Boylston Housing Corp. v. O'Toole, 321 Mass. 538, 562 (1947). While Plaintiff is not required to prove damages to a mathematical certainty, "damages cannot be recovered when they are remote, speculative, hypothetical, and not within the realm of reasonable certainty." Id., quoting Kitner v. CTW Transport, Inc., 53 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 748 (2002). An award of damages must be sufficiently related to the breach that it may be presumed to have been contemplated by the parties at the time of the contract formation. Id., quoting Boylston Housing Corp., 321 Mass. at 562. Plaintiff may not recover for mental anguish or inconvenience in a contract action. McCone v. New England Telephone, 393 Mass. 231, 234 n.8 (1984).
In support of its Motion, Ragsdale argues Plaintiff has suffered no actual damages, and that nominal damages would not be appropriate in this case. See Schwartz v. Travelers' Indemnity Co., 50 Mass.App.Ct. 672, 682 (2001) (). This argument fails, because the undisputed evidence is that Plaintiff suffered actual damages. A reasonable jury could find many, but not all, of plaintiff's expenses were reasonably foreseeable if Ragsdale did not register and inspect the Prizm as agreed.
That said, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, this court rules that no reasonable jury could find that, at the time of the sale, it was reasonably foreseeable to Ragsdale that Plaintiff would be involved in an automobile accident as a proximate result of Ragsdale's failure to register the vehicle. Plaintiff's argument that it was foreseeable he would be so distracted by this issue that he would be unable to operate a motor vehicle safely is "simply too remote to have been within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was executed." International Totalizing Systems, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 29 Mass.App.Ct. 424, 430 (1990), citing Abrams v. Reynolds Metals Co., 340 Mass. 704, 709 (1960). Accordingly, Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of proving Count 4 of the Complaint, and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Count 4. See Flesner, 410 Mass. at 809; Kourouvacilis, 410 Mass. at 716.
A seller creates an express warranty in one of three ways: (1) by making a factual representation or promise related to the goods, which becomes part of the basis of the bargain; (2) by describing the goods in such a way as to imply that the goods will match the description; or (3) by showing a sample or model that creates the impression that the goods will conform to the sample or model. Hannon v. Original Gunite Aquatech Pools, Inc., 385 Mass. 813 (1982), citing G.L.c. 106, §2-313.
The pleadings and affidavits, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, support an inference that Ragsdale made warranties to Plaintiff regarding the registration of the vehicle, the attachment of an inspection sticker, and the availability of a loaner car. Ragsdale's argument that Plaintiff suffered no damages is unpersuasive. Plaintiff may be entitled to actual damages on his breach of contract claim, and the court finds no...
To continue reading
Request your trial