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
894 charsGiving the defendant notice of the alleged violation or “fracture” is also required by the reasonableness requirement of the “Important Notice Required By Law” section preceding the park rules. This section recognizes that the law requires all “rules and regulations of this [manufactured housing park] to be reasonable.” See RSA 205-A:2, XI (2000) (mandating this disclosure to tenants). It is simply not reasonable for Sherryland to revoke the discount under Rule XX without, at the very least, providing the defendant with an explanation. In this case, the defendant would have been required to infer that the discount was “not working” because she had “fractured” her contract with Sherryland by allegedly violating park rules years earlier. Neither Rule XX nor this reasonableness requirement allow the discount to be revoked by the conclusory statement that the discount is “not working.”