Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Citation
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-09-30
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
Full Text
768 charsThe difference between “extend” and “renew” is a legal nicety of which nonlawyers are likely to be unaware. HLM Realty Corp. v. Morreale, supra at 716. Such was apparently the case with George F. Fiske, Jr., who wrote on behalf of *466Fiske, because he speaks of an option to renew but adds “under the existing lease terms,” language which describes an option to extend. Indeed, the parties treated the August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1999, term as an extension of the old lease. They did not make a new one. In determining whether parties intended to extend under the terms of the existing lease or to negotiate a new one, courts look more to all the circumstances of the lease and the conduct of the parties than to the choice of the word “extend” or “renew.” Ibid.