exposure, the city may then deal, by investigation, settlement, or litigation with the population of claims as to which it has received notice. Like statutes of limitations, notice-of-claims provisions go primarily to the remedy. 56 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 691, at 733. Basically, both involve a legislative “value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. at 463-64, 95 S.Ct. at 1721-1722. According to the majority, however, section 12-309 is not part of any remedial scheme, but rather “add[s] elements to [a] federal right[] of action.” Maj. op. at 1508, citing Gwinn v. District of Columbia, 434 A.2d 1376 (D.C.1981) (<HOLDING>). Changing the characterization of the notice
holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation recognizing that the notice required by section 28430 is a condition precedent to the recovery of attorneys fees pursuant to section 12057lb in hospitals suit against the state holding that the notice requirement is a condition precedent for attorneys fees from section 12069 proceedings in action by plaintiff against state holding that section 12309 is a condition precedent to the accrual of rights against a municipality