Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Citation
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2013-06-25
Other Sections in This Document (19)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
Full Text
1,127 charsFurthermore, we note that the “statutes relating to [s]ummary [p]rocess” referenced in the waiver provision at issue allow for the waiver of a notice to quit in only one circumstance—where the operative lease terminates for lapse of time. See General Statutes § 47a-25. Reading a “lessee’s default” contextual requirement into the waiver provision would effectively read the provision out of the lease, as it would be unenforceable under the summary process statutes. See General Statutes § 47a-4 (b). A reading which renders the waiver provision superfluous does not comport with our precedent requiring us to construe a lease “in such a manner as to give effect to every provision, if reasonably possible.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bristol v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Connecticut, Inc., supra, 284 Conn. 8; see also United Illuminating Co. v. Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC, 259 Conn. 665, 674, 791 A.2d 546 (2002) (“[t]he law of contract interpretation militates against interpreting a contract in a way that renders a provision superfluous”).6 The judgment is affirmed. In this opinion the other judges concurred.