Summer Reading Kicks Off at Boston Libraries
Summer reading at Boston Public Library offers programs and activities designed to inspire children’s creativity and imagination. The theme for 2013 is “Dig into Reading” for children up to age 12. Programs begin in June. Boston Public Library is dedicated to providing educational programming for youth during summer months, helping keep children engaged in reading and in their communities while out of school. Summer reading programs are designed for children to have positive learning experiences and to encourage reading as a lifelong habit. “This summer’s programming is sure to excite children with the varied offerings, which include everything from science and math programs to themed story times and garden crafts,” said Jessi Snow, youth services coordinator for the Boston Public Library. Summer reading is packed with free, fun activities for children and families. Boston Public Library locations will be offering visits from Dr. Can-Do Science, the New England Aquarium and the Museum of Science. The summer schedule includes Countdown to Kindergarten celebrations as well as visits from the ReadBoston Storymobile and the annual Read Your Way to Fenway essay contest. For a look at the calendar and hours at the South End Branch, visit bpl.org/branches/southend.htm. Boston Public Library’s 2013 summer reading brochure is available online at www.bpl.org/summer where children can find activities just for them. Copies of the brochure are available at all library locations and at Boston Centers for Youth and Families. The summer reading program is made possible by the Boston Public Library Foundation, John Hancock, the Red Sox Foundation, and Bill and Cheryl Swanson. “Dig into Reading” is sponsored by the Massachusetts Library System, the Boston Bruins, and the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. —Submitted by Boston Public Library South End Patch
Reading Co-Operative Bank v. Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-038-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC‑11159 READING CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Suffolk. November 6, 2012. ‑ March 13, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Uniform Commercial Code, Secured creditor, Damages. Damages, Mitigation. Estoppel. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 25, 2006. The case was tried before Stephen E. Neel, J., and entry of judgment was ordered by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. R. Robert Popeo (Paul J. Ricotta with him) for the defendant. Nelson G. Apjohn (Cynthia M. Guizzetti with him) for the plaintiff. LENK, J. This case requires us to determine, among other things, whether art. 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code displaces the common law on the question of the proper measure of a secured creditor’s recovery under G. L. c. 106, § 9-405. We conclude that it does. The defendant, Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (Suffolk), contracted with Benchmark Mechanical Systems (subcontractor) for construction of elements of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system at a building project in Reading. As partial collateral for a revolving line of credit, the subcontractor assigned to the plaintiff, Reading Co-Operative Bank (bank), its right to receive payment under the contract with Suffolk. Suffolk received notification of the assignment and agreed to make payments directly to the bank. However, Suffolk instead made twelve payments to the subcontractor. The subcontractor subsequently ceased business operations, with an outstanding debt to the bank on its line of credit. Seeking recovery of the total value of the misdirected payments, the bank filed an action in the Superior Court for breach of contract and violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), pursuant to G. L. c. 106, § 9-405. A Superior Court jury found Suffolk liable on both counts for ten of the twelve checks that Suffolk had delivered to the subcontractor. The jury found that the bank was estopped from recovering with respect to the final two checks. The jury calculated the bank’s actual damages as $ 533,348.62, and the judge entered judgment on the contract claim in this amount. However, concluding that he was statutorily required to do so, the judge entered judgment on the statutory claim in the amount of $ 3,015,000.49, the full face value […]