New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Creative Playthings Franchising Corp. v. Reiser

2/13/2013

 
Supporting the Freedom of Parties to Contract to Shorten the Time Within Which to Bring Claims

The issue before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in this case was whether business parties could, by agreement, shorten the limitation period for actions arising out of their contract. The question was certified to the SJC by the U.S District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It arose out of a dispute between a franchisor and the defendant, the former franchisee, which resulted in federal court litigation. 

After the franchisor sued the defendant for breach of the franchise agreement and other wrongs, the latter counterclaimed. Relying on a provision in the agreement that mandated a shorter limitation of action period than the six-years provided by the relevant statute of limitations, the franchisor moved to dismiss the counterclaims as untimely. This was, naturally, opposed by the franchisee. After concluding that there existed no Massachusetts precedent generally establishing whether such a contractual provision should be honored, the federal Magistrate Judge certified the question to the SJC. 

Rather than thoroughly researching Massachusetts law on the question presented, the parties’ briefs concentrated on their differing interpretations of four relatively recent Massachusetts appellate decisions, each of which the franchisor said supported its contention that such private agreements are enforceable under Massachusetts law. Concerned by the paucity of thorough legal research and concerned, as always, with the protection of business parties’ freedom of contract, NELF filed an amicus brief in support of the franchisor. In its brief, NELF demonstrated that the right of parties to contract for a shorter limitation period was discussed and recognized by the SJC as early as 1856 in an insurance case. NELF then traced subsequent 19th and early 20th century decisions of the Court that recognized the principle in a number of contexts and treated it as a general principle of contract law. 

In its amicus brief NELF also corrected a number of the defendant’s misunderstandings of Massachusetts law, including the Massachusetts version of the UCC. NELF then explained that, contrary to the defendant’s contention, such contractual limitations periods do not violate public policy ipso facto even when the period for suit lapses before a claim accrues; such contractual periods merely mirror statutes of repose, which the SJC has enforced as lawful despite their operating in precisely a similar fashion. NELF concluded by emphasizing to the Court the importance to commercial parties of having this particular form of freedom of contract as a tool to limit exposure and control costs, and it asked the Court to take the opportunity afforded by the case to clarify the rule of contract law underlying its previous decisions. 

In its decision issued on November 21, 2012, the SJC agreed with NELF’s analysis, citing many of the cases brought to its attention by NELF. Noting that, despite its application of the principle in the past, it had never expressly stated a general contract rule, the SJC pronounced that “[w]hen a claim arises based on a contract, and the contractually shortened limitation period is reasonable and not contrary to other statutory provisions or public policy,” the shortened limitation period is enforceable as a matter of Massachusetts law.

Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001