ZAYRE CORP. & another [Note 1] vs. COMPUTER SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC., & another. [Note 2]

CUTTER, J. Computer Systems of America, Inc., and Keohane (see note 2, jointly referred to as CSA) appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their counterclaims against Zayre Corp. (Zayre) and Comdisco, Inc. (Comdisco). Zayre and Comdisco by their complaint had sought declaratory relief against CSA. This complaint now has been waived. The five-day trial of this case, in January, 1986, before a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury, dealt only with the CSA counterclaims, which are summarized in the margin. [Note 3] The judge, on February 18, 1986, made comprehensive findings (on which the facts stated below are based in major part), rulings, and a decision adverse to CSA. Background Facts and Findings.

Zayre is the owner of a chain of discount department stores. On October 26, 1973, Zayre, as lessee, and CSA, as lessor, entered into an eight-year lease of a computer system. The

Page 561

leased system consisted of a basic IBM 370/168 central processing unit (CPU) and some peripheral items, in the aggregate hereafter referred to as the CSA system. Zayre used the CSA system from a single computer center to perform a great variety of merchandise and financial functions (by the use of leased telephone lines) for all its retail stores (about 250 in number).

Because of rapid expansion between 1973 and 1979, Zayre needed to increase its computer capacity. Robert Hernandez, Zayre's manager of management information systems, prepared a report on Zayre's computer needs which concluded that the CSA system was operating at full capacity and that Zayre should increase computer power at once. The report offered seven alternative plans for increasing Zayre's computer capacity and recommended that Zayre add an attached processor (AP) to its existing CSA system. This, it was expected, would double the system's capacity. [Note 4]

After discussion, members of Zayre's operating management initially adopted Hernandez's recommendation that the CSA system be upgraded. Hernandez's immediate supervisor, Charles Whittle, disagreed with Hernandez's recommendation, however, because it would require that the computer not be operated for a significant period ("downtime"). [Note 5] Whittle reported his disagreement to his immediate superior Mervyn Weich. Weich, nevertheless, adopted Hernandez's recommendation in a memorandum of October 26, 1979, to Zayre's president, Maurice Segall.

Zayre decided, both for financial and operating reasons, that it wanted to own, not lease, its computer system. CSA did not want to sell the system in place on Zayre's premises because of

Page 562

adverse economic and tax consequences. [Note 6] Accordingly, Zayre sought bids for a comparable (already updated) system from various companies, [Note 7] including CSA and Comdisco. (See note 1, supra.) Comdisco offered by letter of January 8, 1980, (a) to install for Zayre an already upgraded, "Model 3," IBM 370/168 computer and (b) to take from Zayre a sublease of the CSA system. Zayre's management determined that Comdisco's proposal was the best available and on March 6, 1980, executed a sales agreement for the Comdisco system and an agreement for a sublease (to Comdisco) of the 1973 CSA system. These two agreements were not to take effect unless CSA consented to the sublease to Comdisco of the CSA system. [Note 8]

On March 6, 1980, Zayre wrote to CSA requesting CSA's consent to the sublease to Comdisco of CSA's system. By a letter of March 10, 1980, CSA replied to Zayre's request and

Page 563

outlined various conditions to giving consent. On March 19, 1980, Comdisco replied to CSA, enclosing a copy of the proposed sublease. This letter of March 19, from Mr. Philip Hewes, assistant corporate counsel of Comdisco, to Mr. Keohane, president of CSA, said in part, "Comdisco is a leasing company and is proposing [further] to . . . sublease the [CSA] [e]quipment to one or more end users." [Note 9]

The judge found that, in the letter of March 19, 1980, Mr. Hewes also informed CSA that "Comdisco had . . . `no plans for the [CSA] equipment because the delivery date is not until May, 1980. . . .' Comdisco in fact planned [immediately] to . . . terminate the [1973 l]ease after CSA's consent to the sublease . . . and intentionally did not inform CSA of that intent in order to induce CSA to consent to the sublease. On March 21, 1980, CSA consented to the sublease subject to the letters from Comdisco to CSA, [including that] dated March 19, 1980. . . . CSA relied on the representations contained in the letters of Comdisco signed by [Mr.] Philip Hewes, dated March 19, 1980, and [one of] March 21, 1980, [not here relevant]. . . . CSA believed, based on its knowledge of the business and financial standing of Comdisco, that Comdisco would continue the [1973 l]ease . . . by subleasing the equipment to other users. If CSA had known of Comdisco's intent to terminate the [1973 l]ease . . ., CSA would not have consented to the sublease."

These findings were warranted by the documentary evidence and also by reasonable inferences drawn from the testimony of Mr. Hewes that prompt termination "was one of the options that . . . [Comdisco] had under the terms of the transaction" with Zayre and "that the company had a very strong intention

Page 564

and probability of terminating that lease." Mr. Hewes also testified, in effect, that the existence of par. 8 (see note 9, supra) in the proposed sublease, a copy of which was sent to CSA, was a principal basis for Comdisco's position that CSA was on notice of the possibility (and even the likelihood) that Comdisco would ask Zayre to terminate the 1973 lease.

In any event, CSA on March 20, 1980, did consent to the sublease to Comdisco, subject to certain conditions designed to protect CSA's interest in the CSA system and to enable CSA to ascertain the location of the system from time to time. By the sublease Comdisco agreed "to indemnify and assume all of the costs [to Zayre] associated with . . . [a] termination" of the 1973 lease of the CSA system requested under Section 12.2 of the 1973 lease. On April 7, 1980, Comdisco by letter asked Zayre to terminate the 1973 lease, and on April 25, 1980, Zayre did so on the ground that the leased equipment was "surplus" to Zayre's requirements. In a letter of May 2, 1980, CSA objected that Zayre was not entitled to terminate the 1973 lease under Section 12.2 of that lease.

Various negotiations then took place between CSA and Comdisco. To permit the whole matter to be dealt with pending the determination of the rights of the parties under the 1973 lease, and reserving those rights, CSA on October 27 sold its interest in the leased equipment to Comdisco for $660,472.11 which was the termination value of the equipment referred to in Section 12.2. [Note 10]

The judge compared (a) the CSA system installed in Zayre's premises (i.e., the IBM 370/168 equipment slightly supplemented by Zayre between 1973 and 1979) with (b) the already

Page 565

upgraded 370/168 computer to be purchased (and actually purchased) from Comdisco. Largely on the basis of exhibits before him, the judge concluded that the upgraded equipment, supplied by Comdisco, "increased Zayre's central processing capacity from 2 MIPS [one MIPS is the capacity to handle one million instructions per second] to 3.6 MIPS, allowed for expansion of memory capacity from 4 megabytes [storage capacity expressed in number of characters available for instant recall] to 7 megabytes . . ., provided for two processors to run simultaneously (versus one in the CSA system), provided for 8 channels (versus 7 in the CSA system), and allowed Zayre to run a multiple virtual system [MVS], . . . a new operating system that had been introduced by IBM since the installation [in 1973] of the CSA [s]ystem . . . . [The system purchased from Comdisco] also allowed Zayre to operate with new software equipment which could not be operated on the CSA System." The judge found that "Zayre could have arrived at its new computer configuration by updating and changing the CSA System. These updates and changes would have resulted in adverse financial problems to Zayre as a result of computer downtime [Note 11] and [x] Zayre would have been left with a basic IBM 370/168, on which IBM notified customers of its intent to discontinue maintenance service." [Note 12] The judge concluded

Page 566

that "the CSA System had become obsolete for Zayre's purposes in late 1979." Discussion

The trial judge's decision on CSA's counterclaims (see note 3, supra) is discussed in the following parts 1 to 6, inclusive.

1. The present case involves in most respects the same provision, i.e., Section 12.2 of CSA's apparently standard computer lease form, considered in Computer Syss. of Am., Inc. v. Western Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 430, 438 (1985), hereafter the Western Reserve case). In that decision, a panel of this court considered a situation in which the lessee of computer equipment determined that the CPU of its leased computer was inadequate and decided to buy for itself a larger CPU than that leased by it from CSA. The input/output (I/O) equipment of its old system was still usable. The opinion held that, in the situation then before this court, analysis of Section 12.2 permitted termination of the lease only as to the CPU. 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 434-435. The parties in that case had negotiated unsuccessfully "for replacement of the CPU with a larger CPU." The old I/O equipment in the Western Reserve case "could be used with either CPU and was in fact used with the new CPU" for a period of time. 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 433 n.4.

This court decided (at 435) that "[i]f the equipment, or some part of it, became technologically outmoded [i.e., "obsolete"] or no longer capable of handling Western Reserve's day-to-day business needs, the lease could be terminated as to the equipment or that item." This quotation should be read with the language of the Western Reserve case (at 437) which decided (on the facts then before this court) that Section 12.2, as analyzed in detail in the opinion, "expresses an intention to allow termination of only those items of hardware which Western Reserve

Page 567

found individually to be obsolete or surplus, rather than termination of the system as a whole (unless the system as a whole had become obsolete or surplus)" (emphasis supplied). [Note 13]

We read the judge's conclusion as finding Zayre had decided that the 1973 CSA system as a whole had become inadequate for Zayre's purposes. The judge's conclusion plainly rested in major measure on the serious risk of "downtime" [Note 14] if Zayre should resort to the complex and costly process of "upgrading" the CSA system. [Note 15] This type of problem was not involved in the Western Reserve case.

2. The trial judge decided that "[b]etween Zayre and CSA, Zayre's rights and obligations under the [1973] lease were not diminished by the sublease to Comdisco. For Zayre's purposes the CSA [s]ystem remained incapable of carrying out Zayre's business operations effectively." [Note 16] He ruled also that, because

Page 568

Zayre was entitled to terminate the lease in any event (under the judge's view of this court's decision in the Western Reserve case), the sublease made no difference in the result. He concluded that Zayre was entitled under Section 12.2 of the 1973 lease to terminate that lease and that doing so "did not constitute a breach of the lease."

3. CSA now contends that Zayre is liable to it under an "estoppel" theory because CSA relied to its detriment upon a misrepresentation of fact by Zayre, express or implied. The only possible misrepresentation to CSA by Zayre mentioned in the judge's findings was that one "representative of Zayre assured CSA that the sublease between Zayre and Comdisco would be a legitimate sublease." [Note 17] The judge decided that the sublease was in fact "legitimate" and that "Zayre did not misrepresent or fail to disclose any pertinent fact." This view was well warranted by the evidence that Zayre, prior to April, 1980, was not informed by Comdisco (as one of its representatives testified) of any intention by Comdisco to request termination by Zayre of the 1973 CSA lease. Indeed, Comdisco had talked to Zayre representatives of further subleases to other

Page 569

users of computer equipment. When Comdisco's request for Zayre to terminate the 1973 lease was made (preceded by a telephone call about April 5, 1980, to Whittle at Zayre from Mr. Hewes), Whittle was "very much" surprised. [Note 18] We perceive no basis for holding Zayre liable to CSA under principles discussed in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 90 (1981). See Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman Co., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 152, 154-159, S.C., 376 Mass. 757, 760-763 (1978).

4. CSA contends that even if Zayre made no misrepresentations to obtain CSA's consent to the sublease of the CSA system, Comdisco is estopped to request Zayre to terminate the 1973 lease. The judge found that CSA relied upon the language already quoted from Comdisco's letter of March 19, 1980, misrepresenting Comdisco's intentions with respect to the 1973 lease. See note 9, supra, and related text of this opinion. The judge, however, correctly took the position that Comdisco's misrepresentations should be viewed in the context in which they took place. He pointed out that Comdisco, Zayre, and CSA were "all . . . large sophisticated corporations that can presumably look out for themselves." He concluded that CSA could not "reasonably believe that Zayre had any basis for assuring the future conduct of Comdisco" in view of CSA's knowledge of the terms of the sublease. With this result we agree. [Note 19]

5. For recovery against Comdisco on principles discussed in the Loranger Constr. Corp. case, 6 Mass. App. Ct. at 155,

Page 570

and 376 Mass. at 760-761, [Note 20] there must be a showing that CSA "reasonably" relied on Comdisco's misrepresentation in the circumstances here disclosed. [Note 21] The judge had sufficient basis for concluding that "CSA, as a sophisticated business entity [indeed, with a president trained as a lawyer and an active participant in the transaction], could not reasonably view Comdisco's misrepresentation as any assurance that there would be no termination" of the 1973 lease.

6. Reasonable reliance, however, is not necessarily a prerequisite of recovery under G. L. c. 93A, Section 11. See International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 850 (1983). Liability (and the extent of liability) under c. 93A turns on an appraisal of the allegedly culpable conduct of the entity charged with violating that chapter. Here, as already noted, the judge found that CSA would not have consented to the sublease to Comdisco if CSA had known Comdisco's intention to terminate the 1973 lease. That consent, even if unnecessary (see note 16, supra, was advantageous [Note 22] to Comdisco. Without that consent, CSA at least could have delayed or forced revision of the Zayre-Comdisco purchase of a new computer. It was open to the judge to determine that Comdisco's conduct amounted to a violation of c. 93.A, Section 11, because it was within "at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness . . . [or] is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous." [Note 23] See Levings v. Forbes & Wallace,

Page 571

Inc., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 498, 503-504 (1979). See also Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 390 Mass. 604, 616 (1983). Compare Business Brokers Intl. Corp v. Roderick, post 957 (1987).

Whether the Comdisco misrepresentation was sufficiently and effectively deceptive to give rise to any recovery at all under G. L. c. 93, Section 11, and whether it should give rise to more than a single recovery, is a matter essentially for the determination of the trial judge, who has heard and seen the witnesses. He could reasonably consider the case to be more like the Levings case, 8 Mass. App. Ct. at 504, than like the situation underlying Wang Laboratories v. Business Incentives, Inc., 398 Mass. 854, 855-857 (1986). See and compare Wasserman v. Agnastopoulos, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 672, 678-681 (1986). We accord deference to his judgment on the issues. We cannot say that, on the present record, his conclusions were error as matter of law.

Judgment affirmed.