Section three
- Citation
- Section three
- Parent Document
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-06-30
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- 190 Elm Street Realty, LLC v. Beaudoin, 151 N.H. 205 (2004)
- Section three
- Section three
- Section three
Full Text
603 charsIn addition to responding to arguments raised by the defendant, the plaintiff raises a number of its own arguments on appeal. In one argument, the plaintiff contends that even if the statute of frauds is satisfied, the defendant failed to properly exercise her option to extend the agreement. Given that the plaintiff failed to file a cross-appeal, these issues are not properly before the court. See Unit Owners Assoc. of Summit Vista v. Miller, 141 N.H. 39, 43 (1996). We therefore decline to address them and express no opinion as to whether the issues can be argued on remand. Reversed and remanded.