Court refuses to palm off tough decision; issues blistering ruling in disjointed property case

Terry Klein points us to a Mass. Appeals Court decision that gave a thumb's down to an attempt to make "by hand" mean the same as "in hand."

At issue: A $760,000 purchase-and-sale agreement for some property in Weston, specifically, a clause in the agreement that required delivery of documents "in hand."

Turns out the plaintiff dropped off a notice to postpone closing at the defendant's office when nobody was around, but made a point to leave it where he thought somebody would see it, and thought that this was good enough.

The court refused to knuckle under the plaintiff's logic, ruling that this was merely "by hand" delivery, and that just wasn't good enough, because "in hand" means it has to be put in an actual person's hands:

The plaintiff, in essence, asks this court to revise the explicit language of the notice provision from "in hand" to "by hand." We decline.

And then the court nailed the plaintiff for attorney's fees and court costs for the defendant.