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
841 charsThe defendant contends that “[t]he parties modified the terms of the lease to provide that once the roof was completely repaired, [the defendant] would pay all rent that it owed, including its portion of the real estate tax bill.” The plaintiffs counter that this argument was not preserved for appellate review, and that, in any event, the evidence does not show a modification of the lease. Upon review of the record, we conclude that even if this issue had been preserved, the evidence would not support a finding of modification. There appears to have been, at most, an agreement sometime prior to November 5, 2003, “to defer discussions regarding the unpaid real estate tax rent until the roof has been repaired.” There is no evidence that this agreement authorized the defendant to begin withholding the fixed monthly rent in December.