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 (21)
- 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)
- 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
894 charsMay 1, the plaintiff notified the defendants by letter that the amount of the increased rent beginning June 1 could not be determined until later when the index had been published, and that the plaintiff would send notice of the increase, which would be retroactive to the commencement of the renewal term. On August 14, the plaintiff sent a letter stating that the new rental payment would be $1273.80 starting on September 1, and requesting that the additional rent for June, July and August, in the total sum of $1841.40, be forwarded. Soon after receipt of this letter the defendants spoke about the rent increase to a representative of the plaintiff who was employed as assistant manager of the shopping center where the leased premises were situated. He advised them that he had no authority to negotiate and that the defendants would have to contact the New York office of the plaintiff.