Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Citation
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Parent Document
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 1991-06-04
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
- Arcade Co. v. Kentco, Inc., 592 A.2d 135 (1991)
Full Text
754 charsThe tenant makes a second argument that assuming the rent was due on October 1, that it properly paid the rent by depositing same in the mail on September 29, 1989. The tenant does not dispute that landlord did not receive the rent payment until October 6, 1989. The landlord disputes that tenant mailed the rent on September 29, stating that the envelope was postmarked October 5. In any event, tenant cites no persuasive authority for the general proposition that a tenant timely pays rent by mailing the payment before the due date, that is, a “mailbox rule.” The contract language in the instant case is clear that landlord bargained for possession of the rental payment on the first of the month, not to hear a story that “the check is in the mail.”