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

819 chars
The trial court's ruling is fundamentally at odds with the general principles of contract law applicable to lease agreements. See Bown v. Hamilton, 601 A.2d 1074, 1078-79 (D.C.1992) ("`leases of urban dwelling units should be interpreted and construed like any other contract'") (quoting Javins v. First Nat'l Realty Corp., 138 U.S.App. D.C. 369, 373, 428 F.2d 1071, 1075 (1970)). The trial court found that Auger and Tasea had entered into a month-to-month lease at $500 per month. "The parties to a contract are free to modify that contract by mutual consent." Hershon v. Hellman Co., 565 A.2d 282, 283 (D.C.1989). No evidence was presented, however, that there was mutual consent to a higher rent rate here. To the contrary, Auger filed suit against Tasea approximately one month after receiving Tasea's rent demand.