Kwipu v. Sontag

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a [Chapter 93A] violation is a question of law”
• stating that a Chapter 93A plaintiff must show “a causal connection between the deception and the loss”
• holding that “the [A]ttorney [G]eneral may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of [Chapter 93A],” like 940 C.M.R. § 15.00 et seq., that “define[] and outlaw[] certain unfair or deceptive business practices in the sale of travel services to the public”
• finding that violation of travel service regulations qualified as unfair or deceptive acts that caused plaintiff -“a loss: the lack of a prompt refund of the ticket price,” and reiterating that the loss may be “economic or noneconomic”
• reversing trial judge’s holding that no Chapter 93A violation occurred when evidence at trial showed regulatory violation and remanding for determination of damages
• reversing trial judge’s conclusion that no Chapter 93A violation occurred when evidence at trial showed regulatory violation and remanding for determination of damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).