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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2383641/hart-v-vermont-investment-ltd-p... ↗

Full Text

802 chars

Although Tenant has not framed its argument in terms of unconscionability, it has at least indirectly invoked that doctrine. Even when construing a contract containing a provision like § 2.01, a court might reasonably decline to allow a landlord to raise the monthly rent from, say, $3000 to $9000. So large an increase might well be deemed unconscionable, especially if sought to be enforced by the party with the superior bargaining position. But even assuming that, in the absence of an allegation of fraud, a sophisticated tenant who had engaged in extensive negotiations with a landlord could thereafter successfully invoke the doctrine of un-conscionability — a dubious proposition at best, see, e.g., Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 121 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 319, 350 F.2d 445, 449 (1965) 9

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text