Gowing v. Bell

1 Citing case

  1. Ross v. Ross

    170 N.H. 331 (N.H. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that because the "duration of the lease [was] neither stated in nor determinable from [the lease] document," it was "insufficiently definite to satisfy the statute of frauds"

    The defendants respond, correctly, that this court has never held that the duration of a lease is an essential term that must be expressed in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds. See Gowing v. Bell, 96 N.H. 361, 363, 77 A.2d 105 (1950) (noting that the parties agree that duration is an essential element of a lease). Although we have not held that the duration of a lease is an essential term, numerous other jurisdictions have.