|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 18 new of 220 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 203 of 220:
| 
Feb 24 21:38 UTC 1999 |
Good news, Mary. So we also have $10,000 of property coverage that
would go to us, if say we had a fire?
|
aruba
|
|
response 204 of 220:
|
Feb 24 23:39 UTC 1999 |
Thanks again, Mary. I was kind of hoping we wouldn't have to check in with
Flying Dutchman each year, since that way they might forget about the renewal
and just let it slide at the 5% rate. I'm afraid if we check in they'll be
more likely to up it some more.
In any case, signing it was the right thing to do.
|
steve
|
|
response 205 of 220:
|
Feb 25 00:00 UTC 1999 |
Ah, I don't think they can do that. It says as long as we've paid out
bills and we both agree to continue, the rate goes up 5%. For them to get
around that would be tricky, I'd think.
|
other
|
|
response 206 of 220:
|
Feb 25 00:36 UTC 1999 |
the option clause also seems to rule out alteration in the terms of the lease
other than the rent without mutual approval. (i specify other than the rent
because we've already covered the rent)
|
aruba
|
|
response 207 of 220:
|
Feb 25 01:24 UTC 1999 |
Re #205: The option clause says "Said option may be cancelled with a written
120 day notice at the discretion of either Landlord or Tenant." I read that
to mean that all they have to do is tell us so if they want to up the rent
more than 5%.
|
steve
|
|
response 208 of 220:
|
Feb 25 02:04 UTC 1999 |
I think we need a laywer for that one. If that is true, then why state
the 5% increase at all? The idea here was to provide some continuity for
the tennant, so that they know, unless they've been obnoxious somehow that
they stand a good chance of being able to renew.
|
dang
|
|
response 209 of 220:
|
Feb 25 02:25 UTC 1999 |
Presumably, if they want to raise it more, they would cancel the lease,
and offer us a new one. There wouldn't be a problem with that, legally.
|
aruba
|
|
response 210 of 220:
|
Feb 25 04:58 UTC 1999 |
Re #208: I gather they stated the 5% default because Mary asked for it.
|
mary
|
|
response 211 of 220:
|
Feb 25 12:23 UTC 1999 |
I asked for 5 years and Ms. Watrous suggested the 5% for each of those
years. My understanding is that the option is only for the convenience of
both parties if both parties wish to continue the arrangement without
changing the lease's terms. If either wants out or changes the option is
not taken (in our case) or granted (by Dutchman).
I think you've hit it just right, Mark, regarding the request to notify
Dutchman either way, each January. We now have a non-standard and
longer period before which notice must be given for Dutchman to terminate
our contract. Asking us to notify her of our intentions each year, before
that deadline, will help insure the deadline doesn't get forgotten.
I really don't have a problem with that either. It's the give we'll
extend for taking the 120 days. Besides, when all is said and done I
don't think we really want to be tenants somewhere where the management is
hostile and doesn't want us. So if it came to that, anywhere, we'd want
out not to look for loopholes.
A whole lot of this contact is based on faith and good will. We owe
more in electricity each month than the stipulated rent, yet there
is nothing in the contract obligating us to that payment. We are
being trusted to pay for the power we use. I know that we are
good for that trust. But I'm pleased our landlord feels the same way.
I'm willing to extend that same trust back and keep the relationship
on the best terms possible.
Steve, we won't know the details of our (personal) property
coverage until the policy arrives. I doubt it's replacement
cost insurance so I think it would pay the market value of our
lost equipment up to $10,000.
|
steve
|
|
response 212 of 220:
|
Feb 25 16:25 UTC 1999 |
Right, I was thinking market value. Which is still good.
|
dang
|
|
response 213 of 220:
|
Feb 26 16:08 UTC 1999 |
Yeah, we can get $5 per card for all that sun 3 stuff without paying
shipping. :)
|
lilmo
|
|
response 214 of 220:
|
Apr 14 02:56 UTC 1999 |
Re #160: What does paragraph 8 have to do with the question of ownership?
That one is talking about *us* going bankrupt.
Re #165: Keep reading right where you stopped (or, perhaps, try reading it
before commenting): it says "at reasonable
times upon reasonable advance notice, unless an emergency exists,"
Re #167: I'm glad I'm not the only one who found parts of it to make little
sense! Perhaps we could clean it up, some, and give them a "clean" copy to
use as their boilerplate, for goodwill and our own sanity? :-)
Did we ever figure out why Ms. Watrous blew up at Mark, but was so amenable
to Mary? Is it just a Woman Thing (tm) ? :-)
|
mary
|
|
response 215 of 220:
|
Apr 14 11:40 UTC 1999 |
Re-reading my response #160 *I* don't understand what I was
suggesting. So I can be of no help. ;-)
I marked all of the typos, spelling errors, and sentences that
were obviously mis-edited at some point. I offered Ms. Watrous
this version and she snapped it up, with gratitude. I expect
the next version we see might look a little cleaner.
Regarding your last question - different people on different
days. Mark is a great listener, patient, avoids rudeness
and is about as even tempered as they come. Me, on the
other hand... ;-) This was a fluke thing.
|
aruba
|
|
response 216 of 220:
|
Apr 14 13:10 UTC 1999 |
But we'll take it. :)
|
lilmo
|
|
response 217 of 220:
|
Apr 15 22:00 UTC 1999 |
Most assuredly. Good try, Mark. Good job, Mary! Yea to Mar*'s !! :-)
|
k8cpa
|
|
response 218 of 220:
|
Jul 30 08:12 UTC 1999 |
Hey guys... if you ever run into this problem again...e-mail me at
k8cpa@qsl.net, I'll let you all set up here in my basement.. and I'll
baby sit the thing... I have a phone line and I can be reach voice 24 7...
73's
-chuck
|
steve
|
|
response 219 of 220:
|
Jul 30 17:18 UTC 1999 |
Thanks Chuck.
|
k8cpa
|
|
response 220 of 220:
|
Jul 31 05:19 UTC 1999 |
Ain't Thang man!
^NO
|