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

404 chars
Tasea’s unilateral modification argument also fails because modification of a contract must be supported by consideration. See Hershon, 565 A.2d at 283 (“In order to be valid, however, the modification must possess the same elements of consideration as necessary for normal contract formation.”). No consideration supported Tasea’s demand to increase the rent from $500 per month to $168.94 per day. III.