Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, 245 A.2d 836 (1968)

Citation
Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, 245 A.2d 836 (1968)
Parent Document
Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, 245 A.2d 836 (1968)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1968-09-23

Other Sections in This Document (29)

Full Text

1,022 chars
Had the Commissioners intended that the Regulations impose a contractual duty on landlords enforceable by tenants (again we assume but do not decide that the Commissioners had the power to do so), we think they would have made such intention clear and not left it to conjecture. We see some very practical reasons why the Commissioners may have felt that enforcement of the Regulations should be left to the trained personnel authorized to administer the Regulations. The Regulations are broad in scope and in many instances are expressed in general language, leaving room for the exercise of judgment by those enforcing the Regulations. For example, we find scattered throughout the Regulations expressions such as “good repair”, “good condition”, “clean”, “kept painted”, “properly connected”, “normal occupancy”, “normal demands”, “wide cracks”, “adequate”, etc. These and other like expressions in the Regulations do not state exact standards but leave considerable margin to the judgment of the enforcing authorities.