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
881 charsSimilarly, wholesale abrogation of the independent covenants rule may affect other common law doctrines in ways that have not been brought to our attention by the parties because they are not relevant to the case before us. We note, for instance, that we recently reaffirmed the independent covenants rule in RAL Automotive Group, Inc. v. Edwards, 151 N.H. 497, 500 (2004), in the context of allowing a landlord to mitigate damages by repossessing and reletting the premises without losing the right to seek damages from the original tenant for any deficiency in the rent. The effect that abandoning the independent covenants rule in this case might have on the mitigation of damages doctrine is neither clear nor currently before us. The legislature, on the other hand, may consider the global effects of any change it may make in the framework of the statutory possessory action.