Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Let me get this right? These shrewd business folk, who have so efficiently and deftly managed their other ski areas notably Okemo, hadn't read the lease thoroughly and/or identified exactly where the lease extended to before signing the lease? And they just happened to have property a short ways outside of this area that they thought was included in the lease but really was not? So they want the state to reconsider because they entered into a lease without having read the official lease documentation with a fine tooth comb? Is this seriously for real? Is this seriously a reason they are using to try to get the state to reconsider? Unreal.Jim Higgins, lawyer for the Muellers, argued that the owners had thought the boundary extended to the north and west border of the state park and learned of a buffer between the two only after signing the lease.
Let me get this right? These shrewd business folk, who have so efficiently and deftly managed their other ski areas notably Okemo, hadn't read the lease thoroughly and/or identified exactly where the lease extended to before signing the lease? And they just happened to have property a short ways outside of this area that they thought was included in the lease but really was not? So they want the state to reconsider because they entered into a lease without having read the official lease documentation with a fine tooth comb? Is this seriously for real? Is this seriously a reason they are using to try to get the state to reconsider? Unreal.