## Facts

- Home purchasers sued private homeowners/sellers under G.L. c. 93A based on alleged misrepresentations and undisclosed defects in a residential property.
- The parties executed a purchase-and-sale agreement for the sellers’ private residence in Boxford, Massachusetts.
- The agreement included conditions that the water be turned on, the well be functional, and water-quality tests be acceptable.
- The purchasers alleged the sellers represented that prior ceiling damage had been caused by a defective roof that had been repaired and that a second-floor fireplace was in working order aside from paper used to block drafts.
- After closing, the purchasers allegedly discovered serious water-supply deficiencies requiring new well and treatment equipment, that the fireplace required reconstruction of the chimney and fireplace to function, and that the roof had not been repaired and leaked due to defective construction.
- The purchasers incurred repair costs and sent a c. 93A demand for relief; they alleged the sellers failed to provide satisfactory relief.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged deceptive statements in a one-time sale of a private residence by nonprofessional homeowners occur “in the conduct of any trade or commerce” so as to fall within G.L. c. 93A.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court held that G.L. c. 93A does not apply to a strictly private, isolated sale of a home by sellers not acting in the ordinary course of a trade or business.
- Even assuming the complaint’s factual allegations were true, the purchasers failed to state a claim under c. 93A because the sellers were not engaged in “trade or commerce” in connection with the sale.

## Legal Principles

- G.L. c. 93A reaches “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” only when they occur “in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
- Although “trade or commerce” can include sales of real property, c. 93A is limited to business or commercial contexts rather than purely private transactions.
- A one-time disposition of a seller’s own residence, absent allegations that the seller is in the business of buying, building, or selling homes or otherwise acting commercially, is outside c. 93A.
- The unavailability of c. 93A in a private sale does not determine whether other remedies (e.g., contract or common-law tort) may exist; it only forecloses the statutory consumer-protection claim.

## Conclusion

Because the defendants were private homeowners selling their residence in an isolated transaction and not acting in a business capacity, the alleged misrepresentations were not made in “trade or commerce,” and the purchasers’ G.L. c. 93A claim was properly dismissed.


Lantner v. Carson, 374 Mass. 606, 373 N.E.2d 973 (Mass. 1978)