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

Heading: The Gas Bill

Text: Mr. Chang also challenges the trial court's ruling that he must pay for all natural gas charges under the lease and letter agreement of November 30, 1987, which itself refers to premises at 1789 Columbia Road. Under the terms of the letter agreement, the parties agreed that Mr. Chang would pay one hundred percent (100%) of the gas bill. The issue at trial was whether this language obligated Mr. Chang to pay for all of the gas used on the entire property, including the premises occupied by the other tenants, or whether he was required to pay for only the gas used by Mr. Eggroll. We hold that, to the extent that there is any ambiguity about the gas usage, Mr. Chang is liable only for the gas he used while operating Mr. Eggroll. In interpreting the letter agreement, we must determin[e] what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought the disputed language meant. 1010 Potomac Associates v. Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., 485 A.2d 199, 205 (D.C.1984) (citation omitted); see Dodek v. CF 16 Corp., 537 A.2d 1086, 1093 (D.C.1988) (when interpreting a contract, court should look to the intent of the parties). Because the letter agreement was a modification of the earlier lease of the Mr. Eggroll premises at 1801 Adams Mill Road, no reasonable person in the position of these parties would read the letter agreement and conclude, merely on the basis of a mistake in the caption of the letter, that the letter agreement actually applied to 1789 Columbia Road rather than, or in addition to, 1801 Adams Mill Road. Thus, assuming that any of the other tenants used natural gas, [7] Mr. Chang is liable only for the gas used by Mr. Eggroll.