Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Citation
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2010-12-30
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551230/tippett-v-daly/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (168)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
Full Text
1,132 charsOn April 29, 2002, the tenant filed a complaint seeking damages, specific performance of the alleged contract for sale of the property, and an injunction ordering the owner to comply with TOPA. Following a bench trial, the trial court directed the owner to “negotiate with [the tenant] in good faith for the sale of’ the property. The court first found that the tenant had timely provided his statement of interest by mailing it on May 18. The court calculated the thirty-day period for response from the date the owner mailed the offer of sale, April 28, added three days for mailing and an additional day because April 29 was a Sunday, see Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6 (2001), and determined that the statement had to be provided by June 3, 2001. Moreover, the court held that the tenant’s “acceptance of the offer of sale was complete upon mailing the statement of interest on May 18, 2001[,]” and that the statement of interest was therefore timely regardless of when the owner actually received it. (Bench Order and Op. at 4 (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 63(a) (1981).)) II. Was the Statement of Interest Timely Provided?