INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 1639

Citation
Section 1639
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)

Full Text

564 chars 
[14] We do not consider here a situation where the owner fails to pick up his mail, is absent for several days, or otherwise frustrates timely receipt of notice. See, e.g., Cities Service Oil Co. v. National Shawmut Bank of Boston, 342 Mass. 108, 172 N.E.2d 104, 105 n. 1 (1961) ("Unavailability of the party to be notified may affect the rule [that notice to exercise an option is effective only upon receipt].)"; United States ex rel. B & R, Inc., 19 F.Supp.2d at 225 n. 15 (referring to exception when "the receiver intentionally avoids the receipt of notice").