Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Citation
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-05-20
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
- Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
Full Text
579 charsThe plain meaning of this provision is that the type of defense the defendant sought to assert here, namely, one “which offsets or reduces the amount owed to the plaintiff[s],” is available only “[i]f the landlord elects to make a claim for unpaid rent.” Id. The landlord here did not so elect, but rather sought possession of the premises only. Thus, the trial court erred in offsetting the defendant’s damages against the past-due rent and in ruling that the defendant could avoid eviction by paying the net amount of rent owed. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order.