Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Citation
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-11-21
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
Full Text
985 charsUnder Rule XX, entitled “Rental Fee,” the defendant was permitted to apply the discount to her rental obligation as long as she paid her rent on time, owed no rental balance, and had not “fractured” any part of her contract with Sherryland. In July, Sherryland wrote to the defendant advising her that the discount “[was] not working with [her].” Sherryland claims that this letter was in response to the defendant’s violations of park rules regarding guests and animals and, therefore, permitted it to revoke *268the discount under Rule XX. This letter, however, was inadequate to revoke the discount under Rule XX because the rule implicitly required Sherryland to notify the defendant that she had “fractured” her contract. Absent such notice, the defendant was lawfully entitled to conclude that she was in compliance with the requirements of the rule and entitled to the discount. Because Sherryland did not provide the required notice, it had no authority to revoke the discount.