Posts tagged "Golf"

City of Beverly v. Bass River Golf Management, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-002-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

15-P-171                                        Appeals Court

CITY OF BEVERLY  vs.  BASS RIVER GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC., & another.[1]

No. 15-P-171.

Essex.     November 14, 2016. – January 5, 2018.

Present:  Sullivan, Maldonado, & Neyman, JJ.

Contract, Municipality, Performance and breach.  Municipal Corporations, Contracts.  Consumer Protection Act, Trade or commerce, Unfair or deceptive act.  Bankruptcy, Stay of other proceedings.  Practice, Civil, Directed verdict, Amendment, New trial, Instructions to jury.  Judgment, Amendment. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - January 5, 2018 at 4:01 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

CALM Golf, Inc. v. Read, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-055-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PLYMOUTH, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-01214
CALM GOLF, INC.
vs.
RENE J. READ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TOWN MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF
DUXBURY, AND ROBERT TROY, ESQ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This action arises out of an award to plaintiff, CALM Golf, Inc.(“Calm”), from the Town
of Duxbury (represented by its Town Manager, Rene Read) (“Duxbury”), to operate the North
Hill Country Club and Golf Course (“North Hill”).1 Calm alleges that Duxbury is liable to it for
breach of contract (Count I), violation of Chapter 93A (Count IV), and violation of the
Massachusetts Public Bidding Statute, G. L. 30(b) (Count VI).
Before the Court is Duxbury’s motion for summary judgment. A proper review of the
record shows that the core facts are largely undisputed. It also shows that this case boils down to
two simple, controlling propositions. First, did Duxbury’s award to Calm equate to a contract,
either express or implied? Second, was Duxbury required to conclude a formal contract with
Calm despite the fact that, as the result of litigation brought by a disappointed bidder – the thenextant
manager of North Hill, Johnson Golf Management, Inc. (“Johnson) – this Court ordered
Duxbury not to contract with Calm but rather to continue its contract with Johnson? read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - December 22, 2017 at 10:52 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,