from Glickman. According to Glickman, a defendant makes a negligent misrepresentation under 93A when he makes no effort to ascertain the truth of his statements. See id., at 235. Gear has failed to produce any evidence that Goba made no effort to ascertain the truth of its statements. Furthermore, Gear has presented no evidence that had Goba made such an effort its conclusion that the work was not satisfactory would have been different. Gear has not presented any evidence from which a jury could infer that the work Gear claims it completed was done in compliance with Goba and MHA’s specifications. Gear has presented no evidence that Goba knew or should have known that the work was acceptable. Additionally, it has presented no evidence t r Co., 653 F.Sup. 927, 933 (D.Mass. 1987) (<HOLDING>); contrast Nei v. Boston Survey Consultants,
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 a clause making payment by the owner an express condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor was enforceable holding that the condominium association was not a thirdparty beneficiary of contracts between the owner and contractor of the condominium building and between the general contractor and the subcontractors 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 where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor