Goba acted fraudulently or in bad faith, alleging that work was incomplete, when in fact the work complied with specifications. At best Gear has presented a good faith dispute as to whether the work done was satisfactory and as to whether the punch lists accurately reflected work yet to be accomplished. Such a dispute does not rise to the level of an unfair or deceptive trade practice. Since Gear has failed to present specific facts from which a jury could conclude that Goba acted in an unfair or deceptive manner, Goba’s motion for summary judgment on Gear’s 93A claim is allowed. ORDER For all of the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant, Goba’s motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED as to Counts I-III of the plaintiffs amended complaint. It is further O 8 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Chestnut Hill Development Corp. v. Otis
holding that it was up to the jury to decide whether the broker and seller understood the property to be sold where the listing agreement erroneously indicated a property description was attached but the seller testified the broker knew what property was to be sold holding that purchaser could rescind contract where seller failed to disclose a fact  the flooding of the subject real estate  that seller knew purchaser would regard as material holding that a contract for sale of real estate was not void where the broker failed to obtain the required licenses 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 a person who finds a purchaser for a property falls precisely within the statutory definition of a real estate broker