Search results

MTR, I suggest you use your "ignore" button. And share your own wisdom.

Big enough to park a plane in? :D

Fantastic news, Dazz, well done. And thanks for contributing; I couldn't be more happy for you, and look forward to continuing to learn from your experiences. Have you already finished up at your job?

Absolutely. Way, way out of line, unless the poster asks for a portfolio analysis (which he clearly didn't).

If done with the intention to avoid their responsibilities with regard to an existing contract (the lease with Dazz), it could all be unwound. But I do agree with your point; parties who are in the right can go bankrupt attempting to prove that they're right in court. :mad: I don't think...

I find it amazing that you'd be so arrogant as to accuse Dazz (I assume) of ignorance, then go on to make sweeping - and erroneous - generalisations. :rolleyes:

This just doesn't sound right; it seems contrary to the "time is of the essence" clauses that are in most real estate contracts. Are you able to provide a reference? Which element of statutory or common law is this relying on?

Apart from some states having laws to protect retail tenants, my understanding was that commercial leases were minimally regulated, and could contain whatever the two parties agreed upon. Can anybody confirm/deny?

Oh, Dazz, you'd think they'd have figured out by now that they're not playing with a pushover. :rolleyes: I'm getting a great deal of vicarious joy, imagining their solicitors trying to "fix" this, only to discover that you've got a watertight lease and that they can't in fact fix it. All the...

Thanks, Dazz, for sharing your experience. TheAnalyst: both parties to a commercial lease agreement are (usually ;)) profit-making entities. Isn't a tenant who wants to pay below-market rent, in order to have higher profits, greedier than a landlord seeking a fair return on their investment...