Bad guests + Bad circumstances?
-
Paul Carmel
- Posts: 3836
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:25 pm
- Location: Palma Mallorca & Greece
- Contact:
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
So it is. It is a very easy and quick free download, I've just done it and it takes only a few seconds. As an available toolbar in IE it is a super add-on. There is a Firefox version available.
I am not sure how much notice one can take about page ranking. For instance MSN Hotmail and Amazon are both given 0/10.
Alan
I am not sure how much notice one can take about page ranking. For instance MSN Hotmail and Amazon are both given 0/10.
Alan
-
Paul Carmel
- Posts: 3836
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:25 pm
- Location: Palma Mallorca & Greece
- Contact:
Yep, that's exactly right. I know I don't have to pay them anything, and in a legal sense I should probably pay the tenants who are on the contract. How much does it matter if I pay the other couple back directly?Joanna wrote:If I understand you correctly, the couple who are asking for the refund are not the ones who signed the lease and paid the security deposit. If so, you owe them nothing, not even a reply to their request, since they are not your tenants and you have no contractual relationship with them. They are simply the guests of your tenants. Equally, you cannot hold them responsible for the mess, only the tenants who are named in the lease and signed the lease.
I certainly wouldn't not pay them just because I could get away with it. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night! (And I know that isn't what you meant.)
So did accepting payment directly from them for a part of the rent (it just seemed easier at the time than making them pay through the other couple, and it's the first time I've done that) bind me to them legally for anything? I just thought of it as "money is money, but couple A is liable for it all." Was that wrong?
Sometimes I really feel like I should have a lawyer on retainer.
Brooke
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Brooke,
Look out; here comes the lawyer in me.
What I am about to say is not necessarily the law in any particular country, it is general contract law.
A contract is entered into by party “A� and party “B�. Generally speaking, a contract is exclusive between A and B and neither the obligations nor the benefits can be assigned to another without the joint consent of A and B. It matters not that party “C� met the financial obligations – the contract remains between A and B, and C has no rights or liabilities under the contract.
In your present circumstances you are party A and the others are parties B and C. I would refuse to deal with B and C as though they had separate rights and obligations. I would deal only with the person who entered into the contract – party B.
It matters not what the USA law might be. The property is in France and the contract is subject to French law, unless you have decided otherwise and even that’s not necessarily definitive.
I would deal with this letting as a whole. I would assess the question of a refund and the question of a deduction from the damages deposit as a whole.
I am sure that you would like to come to an equitable resolution but I am equally sure that you are not prepared to be "taken to the cleaners". I would say "stand your ground" and deal with B, only.
Alan
Look out; here comes the lawyer in me.
What I am about to say is not necessarily the law in any particular country, it is general contract law.
A contract is entered into by party “A� and party “B�. Generally speaking, a contract is exclusive between A and B and neither the obligations nor the benefits can be assigned to another without the joint consent of A and B. It matters not that party “C� met the financial obligations – the contract remains between A and B, and C has no rights or liabilities under the contract.
In your present circumstances you are party A and the others are parties B and C. I would refuse to deal with B and C as though they had separate rights and obligations. I would deal only with the person who entered into the contract – party B.
It matters not what the USA law might be. The property is in France and the contract is subject to French law, unless you have decided otherwise and even that’s not necessarily definitive.
I would deal with this letting as a whole. I would assess the question of a refund and the question of a deduction from the damages deposit as a whole.
I am sure that you would like to come to an equitable resolution but I am equally sure that you are not prepared to be "taken to the cleaners". I would say "stand your ground" and deal with B, only.
Alan
Alan,
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for straightening that out!
Brooke,
I don't have an attorney "on retainer" in any formal sense, but I do have a phone number to hit when needed. Of course I always offer to pay, but I wouldn't actually expect to receive a bill unless it developed into something serious. My attorney seems happy to give the odd bit of advice for free because he knows that when I next buy or sell, I'll use him and at that time, he'll probably charge me a little more than average. That works for me because he's an excellent attorney and worth the slightly higher rate anyway. Luckily, I have only needed to call him a couple of times in two years, plus he looked over my lease, but it's good to know he's there.
Perhaps you could use the attorney who handled your house purchase recently? I appreciate that a US Attorney is not likely to know French Law, but they must exist, and if you would like me to ask mine for a referral, let me know. (I'm not suggesting you need one for this, but lined up for the future). You're in CT correct? It's close enough that he may actually know someone.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for straightening that out!
Brooke,
I don't have an attorney "on retainer" in any formal sense, but I do have a phone number to hit when needed. Of course I always offer to pay, but I wouldn't actually expect to receive a bill unless it developed into something serious. My attorney seems happy to give the odd bit of advice for free because he knows that when I next buy or sell, I'll use him and at that time, he'll probably charge me a little more than average. That works for me because he's an excellent attorney and worth the slightly higher rate anyway. Luckily, I have only needed to call him a couple of times in two years, plus he looked over my lease, but it's good to know he's there.
Perhaps you could use the attorney who handled your house purchase recently? I appreciate that a US Attorney is not likely to know French Law, but they must exist, and if you would like me to ask mine for a referral, let me know. (I'm not suggesting you need one for this, but lined up for the future). You're in CT correct? It's close enough that he may actually know someone.
Waves from America