Telephone Answering Service of Boston, Inc. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1971 |
| Citation | 267 N.E.2d 918,358 Mass. 822 |
| Parties | TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE OF BOSTON, INC. v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Philip Raoul Tetu, Natick (C. Frederick Bent, III, Milton, with him), for plaintiff.
Leon F. Sargent, Boston (John F. Desmond, Boston, with him) for defendant.
Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER and BRAUCHER, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
In an action of contract or tort the plainitiff appeals from an order of the Superior Court sustaining generally the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's substitute declaration. There is no merit to the plaintiff's appeal. A proper declaration must contain the 'essential averments which state a case with reasonable clarity and are sufficient to enable the * * * (defendant) to plead to it intelligently and directly.' PIPELINE CONSTR. CO., INC. V. JAFFEE, MASS., 265 N.E.2D 848.A In none of the nine counts of its declaration has the plaintiff sustained this burden. A recitation of the allegations in each count would serve no useful purpose. '(W)here * * * the gist of the action, whatever its form and however stated, is failure to perform a duty arising out of a contract, or our of a relation created by a contract, and the cause of action depends upon that contract properly interpreted, it is essential to state with 'substantial certainty' the facts showing the existence of the contract and the legal effect thereof.' Pollock v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 289 Mass. 255, 261, 194 N.E. 133, 136. Count nine which attempts to set forth an action of tort against the defendant for alleged interference with a contract is lacking in the essential elements for such an action. McGurk v. Cronenwett, 199 Mass. 457, 461, 85 N.E. 576.
Order sustaining demurrer affirmed.
a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1970) 1717.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Squeri v. Mount IDA Coll.
...certainty’ the facts showing the existence of the contract and the legal effect thereof." Tel. Answering Serv. of Bos., Inc. v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 Mass. 822, 267 N.E.2d 918, 919 (1971) (quoting Pollock v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 289 Mass. 255, 194 N.E. 133, 136 (1935) ). The pl......
-
Conformis, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc.
...determination as to whether the second element — breach of contract — is alleged. Cf. Tel. Answering Serv. of Bos., Inc. v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 Mass. 822, 267 N.E.2d 918, 918-19 (1971) ("Where the gist of the action, whatever its form and however stated, is failure to perform a du......
-
Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc.
...failure to perform those duties, or damages attributable to the alleged breach. See Telephone Answering Serv. of Boston, Inc. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 Mass. 822, 823, 267 N.E.2d 918 (1971) (rescript); Singarella v. City of Boston, 342 Mass. 385, 387, 173 N.E.2d 290 (1961) (Kirk, ......
-
Baldwin v. Mortimer
...contract. See Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc., 386 Mass. 187, 194-195, 435 N.E.2d 628 (1982); Telephone Answering Serv. of Boston, Inc. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 Mass. 822, 823, 267 N.E.2d 918 (1971). The undisputed facts are as follows. In 1979, Valenti purchased the 1975 Peterbilt tracto......