|
Plaintiff purported to represent a class
of Massachusetts consumers, allegedly victimized by
“class consumer adhesion contracts” for the lease of
water heaters. Plaintiffs argued that the defendants had
“unilaterally changed material terms” to increase their
profits. Id. at *1.
Plaintiffs sought certification as a
class both under M.G.L. ch. 93A, § 9 and under Mass. R.
Civ. P. 23. The Court noted that the requirements are
different under the statute and the rule, and that
Section 9’s requirements are less demanding. The |
|
Court held, however, that plaintiffs
failed to meet those requirements.
Although plaintiffs asked for a variety
of damages arising out of the so-called adhesion
contracts, they admitted that they had never signed one
of the leases they challenged. Neither of the putative
class repre-sentatives had sustained any of the species
of damages sought. The Court further held that the
proposed class was too broad, in that it pur-ported to
include both claimants who had entered into written
leases and others who did not.
 |
