Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Citation
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-12-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7911954/blitz-v-subklew/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
Full Text
594 charsThe plaintiffs second claim warrants little discussion because it is based on the return of the defendant’s security deposit pursuant to paragraph C of the leasing agreement. The language of that portion of the contract is clear and states that the leasing agreement is void, and the plaintiff shall immediately return the security deposit to the defendant if the plaintiff is unable to obtain approval for a used automobile sales and repair business. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court correctly ruled that the plaintiff was obligated to return the defendant’s security deposit.