potentially viable claims for deceit and negligent misrepresentation, the appellate courts have yet to address whether a nonprivity party can maintain a 93A claim that is grounded only on a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Additionally, whether Gear and Goba had more than a minor or insignificant business relationship is a close question. This court makes no decision, however, on whether or not Gear, in the absence of privity, can maintain a 93A claim that is based only on a claim of negligent misrepresentation. This court concludes that even if Gear can maintain such an action, Gear is not entitled to summary judgment on its 93A claim because it has failed to produce specific facts from which a reasonable juiy could conclude that Goba engaged in unfair or 3-94 (D.Mass. 1991) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Goba had a duty to administer
holding that an abutter could not bring a 93a claim because there was no business relationship with the defendant holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties holding that where there was no evidence of the claimed underlying violation and where there were no unique arguments related to the chapter 93a claim defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs chapter 93a claim holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business