Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)

Citation
Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)
Parent Document
Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1996-05-16

Other Sections in This Document (120)

Full Text

937 chars
We agree with the trial court that there was no limitation in the partnership agreement regarding an increase in rent. The partnership provision does not provide for a specific rent or even the requirement of consent to an increase, rather the pertinent provision requires that the rent be “reasonable.” The parties to the agreement were sophisticated businessmen on relatively equal footing. Thus, we are constrained to avoid rewriting contracts entered into by parties with relatively equal bargaining power. We dealt with a similar issue when deciding how to apportion liability when two insurance policies containing “other insurance” clauses insured the same risk. See Jones v. Medox, Inc., 430 A.2d 488 (D.C.1981), reprinted in David P. Van Knapp, J.D., Annotation, Resolution of Conflicts, in Now-Automobile Liability Insurance Policies, Between Excess or Pro-Rata “Other Insurance” Clauses, 12 A.L.R.4th 981 (1982). It was noted: