Filed May 10, 2006
Where both parties have offices in and conducted their face-to-face business Massachusetts,21 the equipment was delivered by the equipment vendors directly to Lycos in Massachusetts without CSI ever taking possession in Missouri or any other place,22 the usurious payments were made by Lycos from Massachusetts,23 and the conduct and the injury to Lycos occurred in Massachusetts, Massachusetts substantive law applies to Lycos’ usury claim. Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc., 417 Mass. 643, 647-50, 632 N.E.2d 832, 835-36 (1994) (Massachusetts law applies where both plaintiff and defendant resided in Massachusetts and the conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s injury arose in Massachusetts).24 3. Even if the Master Lease’s Choice for Missouri Law Were to Govern Lycos’ Usury Claims, that Choice Should Not be Respected Here Because Missouri Law Offends Massachusetts Public Policy.
Filed April 29, 2005
Here, where both parties were resident in Massachusetts,8 and the conduct and the injury to Lycos occurred in Massachusetts,9 Massachusetts substantive law applies to Lycos’ tort claims. Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc., 417 Mass. 643, 647-50, 632 N.E.2d 832, 835-36 (1994) (Massachusetts law applies where both plaintiff and defendant resided in Massachusetts and the conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s injury arose in Massachusetts). 10 8 Mr. Stenberg of CSI operated out of Needham, Massachusetts, and Lycos is located in Waltham, Massachusetts.