plaintiffs accepted by executing the Agreements and returning them to Chase, along with the supporting documentation. The subsequent breach of the TPP contract by Chase cost plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue other options in the effort to salvage their homes (such as restructuring their debts under the bankruptcy code), or remedying the default by renting or selling the home or looking elsewhere for cash. To add insult to injury, Chase compounded plaintiffs’ predicament by tacking improper fees and servicing costs on loans that already were in default. CAC ¶ 246. Chase concedes (as it must) that in Durmic v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2010 WL 4825632 (D.Mass. Nov. 24, 2010), this court rejected Chase’s arguments against a similar theory of lost opportunity damages. See id., at *3-4 (<HOLDING>). This court also held that the TPP Agreements
holding that a partial failure of consideration can support a claim for breach of contract holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract holding that plaintiffs had set forth a viable claim for breach of contract where as consideration plaintiffs had agreed to assume duties beyond their preexisting legal obligations such as agreeing to undergo credit counseling holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract