|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 220 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 156 of 220:
| 
Feb 12 11:42 UTC 1999 |
Re: #150 Yes, she did. 90 days slipped in as standard and
she remembers the conversation and has asked us to put a slash
through the 90 days, write in 120 days, and have the signer
initial the change. She'll also initial when she signs.
|
steve
|
|
response 157 of 220:
|
Feb 12 15:21 UTC 1999 |
Excellent to hear that, Mary. So is it ready to sign then, once
we have the liability insurance in place?
|
aruba
|
|
response 158 of 220:
|
Feb 12 16:39 UTC 1999 |
Great, I'm glad she didn't make an issue of that, and I'm glad you caught it,
Mary.
|
mary
|
|
response 159 of 220:
|
Feb 12 19:53 UTC 1999 |
Well, it could be signed at the next Board meeting. I'd really like
the have the lease online at least 10 days before that, so that
everyone has the chance to read it through and feel reasonable
comfortable.
Once the Board gives the okay the insurance could be purchased,
either to start immediately or on June 1st.
The day after the lease is signed I'll take it over to Ms. Watrous,
and once she signs both copies she'll keep one and we get the other.
I'll hand our copy over to Mark. Then we all take a sigh of relief.
When the proof of insurance arrives I'll need to get that to
Flying Dutchman.
|
mary
|
|
response 160 of 220:
|
Feb 13 01:44 UTC 1999 |
Okay, the proposed lease is online. As I typed it in I
found a number of spelling errors and such, which I
elected not to correct. What you see is what's on the
paper, or as close to it as I could get.
I'd like to especially point out sections 8 and 14 (b).
With the building's ownership in question 8 might
someday be an issue. If we have our own locks on the
door to our space then 14 (b) means we'd need to be
sure the landlord has a key. This may already be
the case.
I got a kick of of paragraph 38. But mostly I just
have headache and I can't imagine why anyone would
want to date a lawyer. ;-)
|
mary
|
|
response 161 of 220:
|
Feb 13 01:53 UTC 1999 |
There are two ways to view the proposed lease:
(1) If you have a dialup or telnet connection, type at the next prompt:
!more ~mary/www/lease.txt
(2) On the web, go to URL
http://cyberspace.org/~mary/lease.txt
|
devnull
|
|
response 162 of 220:
|
Feb 13 04:25 UTC 1999 |
Is there some sort of exterior sign for the pumpkin?
|
aruba
|
|
response 163 of 220:
|
Feb 13 04:51 UTC 1999 |
Good God, that must have been a lot of work to type in, Mary. Thanks for
doing it.
|
scg
|
|
response 164 of 220:
|
Feb 13 05:28 UTC 1999 |
There's no exterior sign for the Pumpkin.
Is hereinbefore a word?
|
pfv
|
|
response 165 of 220:
|
Feb 13 05:42 UTC 1999 |
The landlord has a key? In what case - and I never had one,
renting in Ypsi - would the landlord be permitted to go waltzing
in without the renters permission and presence??
Just swap the locks out for now - and restore them if you plan
to leave <shrug>
|
scg
|
|
response 166 of 220:
|
Feb 13 07:44 UTC 1999 |
Landlords *always* have to have a key. It's part of every lease I've ever
signed, and I believe it's one of those things that's in the landlord-tenant
law as one of the things that goes without saying if it's not in the lease.
The law also says that the landlord can only use that key for doing
maintenance or showing the place to perspective tenants, and maybe one or two
other similar things, and that the landlord has to give the tenant a
reasonable amount of notice before entering the place unless there's an
emergency.
|
mary
|
|
response 167 of 220:
|
Feb 13 10:39 UTC 1999 |
Re: #164 It is now. ;-) I ran that document through a
spell checker so any creative spelling you spot is in
the original.
There are paragraphs where editors went bad and you're
left with text that doesn't make much sense, brackets
which open and never close, and (a)'s without (b)'s.
Hey, I could have written this document! ;-)
Does our landlord already have a key to our door?
|
davel
|
|
response 168 of 220:
|
Feb 13 15:00 UTC 1999 |
Why are there two paragraphs numbered 31 and none numbered 32?
|
steve
|
|
response 169 of 220:
|
Feb 13 17:18 UTC 1999 |
Bill VanFossen did, so I assume that FD does. If they don't,
they should.
I love the fact that we can get charged for hauling ashes out
of our place. I guess that means its a good thing that we got rid
of our steam powered Sun-3's...
|
mary
|
|
response 170 of 220:
|
Feb 13 17:49 UTC 1999 |
Re: #168 My mistake, which I've now numbered correctly. But
there really isn't a paragraph 16.
|
devnull
|
|
response 171 of 220:
|
Feb 13 22:56 UTC 1999 |
If there is no exterior sign, then the relavent clauses of the lease
should probalby be deleted; otherwise, the whole lease may not be
valid. I know there are explicit clauses in the GNU GPL that say that
if part of the license is invalid or unenforceable, then the rest of the
terms of the license will still hold, and I think the lease on my apartment
has a similar clause; there doesn't seem to be such a clause in the lease
grex is planning to sign, which may mean that the bogus exterior sign
clause could invalidate the whole thing.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not certain that the exterior sign clause needs
to be deleted, but it seems that it would be worth doing in any case.
|
steve
|
|
response 172 of 220:
|
Feb 14 00:38 UTC 1999 |
Hmmm. I don't think it matters.
How many people think we need to have a laywer look at this?
|
scg
|
|
response 173 of 220:
|
Feb 14 05:55 UTC 1999 |
It looks pretty boiler plate to me. There are some clauses there that look
slightly weird, but not worrysome, really. It's also worth noting that Ann
Arbor's landlord-tenant laws are considered to be among the most pro-tenant
anywhere in the US, and that if the law and the lease differ, the law
generally takes precidence. If a lawyer wants to look at it for free I don't
suppose it would hurt anything, but I don't think it's really needed.
|
steve
|
|
response 174 of 220:
|
Feb 14 06:12 UTC 1999 |
In general I agree. However, the landlord -tennant laws here do
not apply for an organization such as ours, if I understand all that
right. Residential only, not commerical.
|
mary
|
|
response 175 of 220:
|
Feb 14 12:16 UTC 1999 |
Re: #171 Maybe there is no exterior signage on the building
*because* of that clause in the lease. I assume we're talking
about paragraph #23?
I can pretty much guarantee that if we have an attorney take
a look at this lease from Grex's position, lots of
scary things will be found. That's what attorneys do. That's
what they get paid to do.
|
steve
|
|
response 176 of 220:
|
Feb 14 17:43 UTC 1999 |
Heh. Esp the Y2K paragraph. ;-)
|
richard
|
|
response 177 of 220:
|
Feb 17 23:01 UTC 1999 |
how much would a lawyer charge to look at a lease? As long as its
not totally unreasonable, might be a safe investment. dpc is a
lawyer right, maybe he'd read it pro-bono?
|
devnull
|
|
response 178 of 220:
|
Feb 18 02:16 UTC 1999 |
There's a book (_The Jungle_, perhaps?) written I believe by a socialist
about all the interesting illegal (and legal but disgusting) things
that were happening in chicago (maybe around the 1920s?). In one of the
scenes, the main character has gotten ripped off buying a house, and he
pays a large sum of money to have a lawyer glance at it and tell him it's
a completely standard contract...
I'm not entirely sure what we would hope to accomplish by having a lawyer
look at it; fundamentally, if there are things we don't like, we either
grin and bear it, get things renegotiated (which is likely difficult), or
find someplace else. There may be specific things that the landlord might
agree to change, and if we want to come up with new wording, it might be
useful to pay a lawyer to write it, but that seems a bit unlikely.
|
steve
|
|
response 179 of 220:
|
Feb 18 04:43 UTC 1999 |
Written by Upton Sinclair and it was indeed _The Jungle_.
The payoff in having a real legal person read something like
this is that there is the chance that they might find some
hidieous thing in it, against the greater chance that they won't.
We're already going to spend another $300 on special insurance
becuase of this. I'm not sure we need to spend more.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 180 of 220:
|
Feb 18 05:57 UTC 1999 |
It terminable by either party with notice, isn't it? It fixes the rent,
right? All that's left to consider is the damage clause - does it
protect us from normal wear the tear? Any other damage is our responsibility
to cover with our insurance. Don't bother having a lawyer look at it (unless
free....).
|