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
Other Sections in This Document (107)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (1995)
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- § 137
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
Full Text
564 chars. Obviously, this case does not involve the kind of negotiation between an industrial giant and an impoverished widow or orphan which is viewed as the paradigm for claims of unconscionability. 10 . New Landlord’s calculation was as follows: Base rent for entire term of lease $423,652.25 Operating Expenses 70,555.29 GROSS AMOUNT DUE 494,207.54 Less: Amounts paid by Tenant —56,707.10 NET DUE AFTER RENT PAYMENTS 437,500.44 Plus: Late Charges at 4% 17,500.02 Attorney’s fees 5,000.00 Less: New Landlord’s mitigation of damages —181,033.29 TOTAL DAMAGES $278,967.17