FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Citation
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Parent Document
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-11-05
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1993882/furlan-v-farrar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (39)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
Full Text
448 charsAt some point in time after having sent the $1600 check to Mr. Farrar, Ms. Furlan called him to inform him that she would be delayed in taking possession of the apartment. The date on which this call was made was also in dispute. According to plaintiff, she placed this call on October 1. The defendant asserts, however, that it was on September 10 and then again in the third week of September that plaintiff called him to inform him of the delay.