Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Citation
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Parent Document
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1981-09-18
Other Sections in This Document (11)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
- Danpar Associates v. Falkha, 438 A.2d 1209 (1981)
Full Text
783 charsIt appears from this recital that the plaintiff never had any good reason to believe that the defendants would not or could not pay the rent if it were insisted upon unequivocally. It was not unreasonable for the defendants to delay payment until they had received the normal courtesy of a reply to their request for a lower rent. The first letter from the plaintiff's attorney indicated that further negotiations might take place. Payment was made as soon as the tenants realized that the landlord insisted upon the full amount of the increase, the day before the plaintiff's attorney formally terminated negotiations by his letter. The situation is clearly one where equitable principles would excuse the technical default in the payment of the rent in order to avoid a forfeiture.