no coercive or extortionate objective.” Framingham Auto Sales, Inc. v. Workers’ Credit Union, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 416, 418 (1996). While the jury did find that Killian breached some aspects of the parties’ contract causing the defendant $10,648 in damages, a breach of contract is insufficient as a matter of law to establish liability under c. 93A. At best, “[t]his [is] an ordinary contract dispute!.]” Kobayashi v. Orion Ventures, Inc., 42 Mass.App.Ct. 492, 505 (1997). There is no evidence of any “conduct that was unethical, immoral, oppressive, or unscrupulous.” Id. (finding mere breach of lease insufficient to establish 93A violation); accord, Madan, 26 Mass.App.Ct. At 762-63 (rejecting 93A claim resting upon breach of lease); Gopen v. Am. Supply Co., Inc., 10 Mass.App.Ct. 342, 348 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Dowse, Inc. v. Brockunier, No. 9129, 1992
holding that a limitation of liability provision in a sales contract was enforceable to bar a breach of warranty claim brought pursuant to glc 93a 11 holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding tenants leasing house by oral agreement were coinsureds both landlord and tenants had liability insurance holding that tenants had standing to bring fourth amendment claim where tenants were threatened with eviction unless they consented to allegedly unreasonable warrantless searches holding tenants vacating premises allegedly in breach of a lease was not enough to trigger c 93a liability