Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Southland Corp. v. Vernon, 473 A.2d 318 (1983)

Citation
Southland Corp. v. Vernon, 473 A.2d 318 (1983)
Parent Document
Southland Corp. v. Vernon, 473 A.2d 318 (1983)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1983-12-06

Other Sections in This Document (67)

Full Text

787 chars
supra, 600-601. This principle does not require, however, the invalidity of this notice to quit. First, the language of the notice substantially tracks that of General Statutes § 47a-23 (a), which sets as one of the bases of a notice to quit that “one originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated.” Second, this notice followed hard on the heels of the plaintiff’s notice of termination of the franchise, which had “the cause stated thereon”; General Statutes § 42-133f (a); and hard on the heels of the decision by the court denying the defendant’s separate application for a temporary injunction against termination of the franchise. Thus, it is inconceivable that the defendant did not know that the basis for the claim *453