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
692 charsThe defendant appears to argue, however, for adoption of the rule that lease covenants are mutually dependent, and cites case law from other jurisdictions holding that view. Under this theory, the tenant’s obligation to pay rent would be dependent upon the landlord’s performance of some or all of the landlord’s obligations under the lease. Thus, for example, the Utah Supreme Court has held that “the lessee’s covenant to pay rent is dependent on the lessor’s performance of covenants that were a significant inducement to the consummation of the lease or to the purpose for which the lessee entered into the lease.” Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 378 (Utah 1996).