Acushnet Federal Credit Union v. Roderick

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• on retrial, judge could submit c. 93A claim to jury for binding determination after reserving claim at first trial
• actionable misrepresentation requires a showing that the purported deceiver knew that the representation was false, or could have discovered the falsity “through a modicum of diligence”
• recovery permitted where there was a showing of privity between the parties
• liability may accrue where speaker has not “cheeked the available facts”
• “The speaker need not know ‘that the statement is false if the truth is reasonably susceptible of actual knowledge, or otherwise expressed, if, through a modicum of diligence, accurate facts are available to the speaker’”
• where a jury might have found that an agent of Acushnet was at least negligent in misrepresenting material facts, jury instructions that only discussed knowing misrepresentation were a ground for reversal and a new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).