DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 540

Citation
§ 540
Parent Document
Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011)
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date
2011-09-28
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10694944/flo-pro-v-10-iron-horse-drive-et-al/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (490)

Full Text

533 chars 
10Nor does Flo-Pro argue that the estoppel certificate
amounted to a modification of section 17.5(a). Indeed, the
certificate specifically stated that the lease had not been
"modified or changed in any way, whether in writing or orally."
See J.G.M.C.J. Corp. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 391 F.3d 364, 369 &
n.3 (1st Cir. 2004) (ruling that an estoppel certificate, even
when integrated with other documents, did not amend a lease, in
part because the certificate stated that the lease had not been
amended) (applying New Hampshire law).