of fact the truth of which is reasonably capable of ascertainment is an unfair and deceptive act or practice within the meaning of c. 93A, §2(a).” Glickman, 21 Mass.App.Ct. at 235. In this case, however, Gear has failed to set forth specific facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Goba made negligent misrepresentations. In Glickman, the court held that the plaintiff could sustain a 93A claim against the developer of a condominium complex based on a claim of negligent misrepresentation, where there was sufficient evidence that the heating system had been defective for some time, the developer had never checked the risers for the heating system, and had he done so he would have discovered that they were corroded. Id. at 235. This case is distin , 388 Mass. 320, 324 (1983) (<HOLDING>); John Boyd Co. v. Boston Gas Co., 775 F.Sup.
holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor holding that the purchaser of the land could not maintain a 93a claim against the surveyor where the surveyor did not participate in the negotiations or in the signing of any of the documents and did not misrepresent the size of the lot holding that the purchaser could sustain a 93a claim against the president and vicepresident of a manufacturing company because they took an active role in the dealings with the plaintiff holding that the purchaser could bring a 93a claim against the real estate broker because the broker misinformed the plaintiff as to the acreage of the parcel and failed to disclose that the property was encumbered 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