Section 2
- Citation
- Section 2
- Parent Document
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1995-11-09
Other Sections in This Document (107)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
Full Text
623 chars484 A.2d at 967. Tenant claims to rely on customary business usage for its interpretation of § 2.01. So far as the appellate record reveals, however, Tenant adduced no evidence as to the relevant practices in the commercial real estate business. We do not doubt that “[w]here a fact is well-known by all reasonably intelligent people in the community, or its existence is so easily determinable with certainty from unimpeachable sources, it would not be good sense to require formal proof.” Poulnot v. District of Columbia, 608 A.2d 134, 141 (D.C.1992) (quoting Harper v. Killion, 345 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex.Civ.App.), aff'd,