VMark Software, Inc. v. EMC Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that in Massachusetts a party may not escape liability for misrepresentation by resorting to damage limitation or integration clauses
• noting that even a common-law misrepresentation, as opposed to one rising to the level of “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous conduct,” would provide the basis for a c. 93A claim
• noting “that the wronged party should ... be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed.”
• suggesting that misrepresentation does not have to be intentional to be “deceptive”
• accepting the assumption that parties’ computer software license agreement was governed by UCC
• court refused to multiply damages in intentional misrepresentation case stating that section 11 multiple damages are an “extraordinary remedy” not applicable to a case of “dogged bumbling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).