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
486 charsTenant’s hypothetical is a somewhat improbable one. In most instances, a reasonably prudent person would not believe that he or she was renting 300 square feet when the premises in question actually covered an area of 900 square feet. Such a miscalculation, in most instances, would be obvious to any reasonable person. But even if we assume that a 200% increase in rent should not be permitted, it does not follow that a de minimis condition should be judicially inscribed into § 2.01.