Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Dooyang Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that failure to pay for completed and ongoing work constituted Chapter 93A violation where company’s “purpose was to extract a favorable settlement” by “stringing out the process”
• concluding that failure to pay for completed and ongoing work constituted Chapter 93A violation where company's “purpose was to extract a favorable settlement . . . for less than [defendant] knew it owed by repeatedly promising to pay, not do so, stringing out the process”
• noting that the term “injury” with respect to § 9 of c. 93A “is a broader term” than “‘loss of money or property’ under § 11” “and includes, for example, emotional distress”
• noting that “[a]n act or practice is unfair [under Chapter 93A] if it is (1) within the penumbra of a common-law statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or (3
• explaining that, under Chapter 93A, § 11, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it suffered a loss of money or property, not time or intangibles like peace of mind, and that the loss stemmed from conduct that violated Chapter 93A
• interpreting Massachusetts law, finding defendant acted unfairly and deceptively where it “repeatedly promised to pay... outstanding ... invoices, though it had no intent to do so”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).