Posts tagged "Technology"

Van Liew v. Eliopoulos v. Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-109-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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

16-P-567                                        Appeals Court

ROLAND VAN LIEW  vs.  PHILIP ELIOPOULOS; Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc., third-party defendant.

No. 16-P-567.

Middlesex.     January 5, 2017. – August 25, 2017.

Present:  Green, Meade, & Blake, JJ.

Libel and Slander.  Constitutional Law, Libel and slander.  Damages, Libel, Emotional distress, Remittitur.  State Ethics Commission.  Conflict of Interest.  Emotional Distress.  Practice, Civil, Judicial discretion, Instructions to jury. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 25, 2017 at 4:39 pm

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

G4S Technology LLC v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-007-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

SUFFOLK, ss                                                                                               SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION

  1. 2014-02998-BLS2

 

 

G4S TECHNOLOGY LLC,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

 

MASSACHUSETTS TECHNOLOGY PARK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

            This is a contract-based dispute arising from a state and federally-funded project to design and construct a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts.  Plaintiff G4S Technology LLC (G4S), the design-builder on the project, instituted the lawsuit claiming that  the defendant Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (MTPC) wrongfully denied a $ 10.1 Million “Request for Adjustment” claim and  improperly withheld an additional $ 4.1 Million based on unfounded claims of late delivery and poor quality of work.  MTPC counterclaimed, alleging   fraud and violation of Chapter 93A.[1]  In an earlier decision, this Court allowed MTPC’s motion for summary judgment as to G4S’s claims, relying on appellate case law which held that an intentional breach by one of the parties to a contract prevented it from recovering on its own contract-based claims so long as that breach was not de minimis.  See Memorandum of Decision and Order dated March 29, 2016 (the March 2016 Decision). read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - February 2, 2017 at 3:56 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,