manner” that the legislature did not intend. Id., 562 A.2d at 136. According to the court, the purpose of § 16-1502, the service of summons statute that was amended at the same time as § 45-1406, the service of notice to quit statute, was to help ensure that a tenant was actually provided with the summons. Thus, where a technical application of the statute would not accomplish this goal, technical compliance would not comport with the spirit in which § 16-1502 was enacted. The court concluded that enant from the method of service — the case here— and the method of service can be accommodated by the language of the statute, consistent with case law and the statute’s legislative history, the court should not invalidate an otherwise adequate notice to quit. Ontell, supra, 527 A.2d at 1295 (<HOLDING>); compare Jones v. Brawner Co., 435 A.2d 54, 56
recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that notice to an englishspeaking commercial tenant was sufficient even though it was written only in english and not also in spanish as  451406 requires holding that when counsel was present when a trial date was announced and received written notice of the date even though the client did not receive notice the attorneys knowledge was imputed to the client holding issue waived because it was not mentioned in brief but was only raised in notice of appeal holding that verbal notice was sufficient