Opinion ID: 1959672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Electric Bill

Text: The calculation of the electricity pass-through charge required an electrical usage study. The trial court found that the landlord had supplied Mr. Chang with the names of two contractors who would conduct the study for $3,000 to $4,000, although the landlord had agreed to name three contractors, not two, and to keep the cost at or below $1,500. The court also found that Mr. Chang did not select a contractor from the landlord's list, but instead stopped paying for electricity altogether. Because neither party had fully complied with the letter agreement, the court ruled that it was still in effect and enforceable and ordered the parties to have the usage study completed within five weeks, with the landlord to pay all but $750 of the cost. Mr. Chang contends that the court misread the contract. Under the original lease signed by the parties on August 23, 1987, Mr. Chang agreed to pay for all telephone and additional electrical services used in the demised premises. Mr. Chang asserts that under this provision he is responsible only for additional electrical services over and above some undetermined baseline. Arguing that the landlord failed in its proof because it presented no evidence of what additional meant, Mr. Chang concludes that he is not obliged to pay for any electricity at all. This is an unreasonable and erroneous argument. Regardless of what additional may have meant in the original lease, that provision was nullified and superseded by the letter agreement of November 30, 1987. The parties to a contract are free to modify that contract by mutual consent. Hershon, supra, 565 A.2d at 283 (citations omitted). Moreover, a contract containing a term inconsistent with a term of an earlier contract between the same parties regarding the same subject matter should be interpreted to rescind the inconsistent term in the earlier contract. Egan v. McNamara, 467 A.2d 733, 740 (D.C.1983) (citation omitted). Mr. Chang's argument, relying as it does on a nullified clause from the earlier contract, therefore fails. The trial court did not err in its resolution of the electricity issue.