D leased property from D. At the end of the lease, P, through its attorney, sent a letter containing an itemized list of damages. P sought payment for repairs. D wrote back, through its attorney, accepting responsibility for some of the damages but not for all of them. P filed a complaint for confession of judgment against D pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in a real estate and equipment lease. The basis was D's alleged failure to make repairs to the leased premises and equipment as required in the lease agreement. A judgment was entered for $ 41,738.94, however, that judgment was opened. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Din the amount of $ 47,300.00. The trial court denied D's motion for a new trial. A panel of the Superior Court reversed and granted D a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting certain correspondence between the parties' attorneys. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.