McNeal v. Lebel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court correctly found contractor did not violate Consumer Protection Act when it failed to construct a home according to specifications, as it was an “ordinary breach of contract”
• holding that trial court correctly found contractor did not violate Consumer Protection Act when it failed to construct a home according to specifications, as it was an “ordinary breach of contract”
• affirming ruling that home builders did not violate RSA 358-A by breaking their promise “to deliver and complete a reasonably defect-free house in six weeks when they knew they couldn’t, or were at least indifferent as to whether they could”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).