CREATIVE PLAYTHINGS FRANCHISING, CORP., & others1 vs. JAMES A. REISER, JR., 463 Mass. 758

Summary

Discerning no reason why Massachusetts contract law should differ from Federal law on the issue, or why limitations provisions should be singled out and subject to a blanket prohibition against the parties' agreement to any shortening of the statutorily prescribed maximum limitations period the supreme court answered the question in the affirmative. If the claim arose under the contract, and the agreed-upon limitations period was subject to negotiation by the parties, was not otherwise limited by controlling statute, was reasonable, was not a statute of repose, and was not contrary to public policy, the shortened limitations period would be enforceable. Because the certified question was narrowly defined and did not concern the specific language in the subject franchise agreement, the supreme court did not reach the question whether the particular limitations provision was unenforceable because it violated the discovery rule or created an impermissible repose limitation.