Hi,
I thought I'd run a poll on a topic close to my heart and as I have seen on the forum, I'm sure many others. In a situation that involves...
(a) Tenant in rental property who has been evicted because they have failed to pay rent; or
(b) Wrappee in process of contract termination because they have breached the terms of an instalment contract.
In both cases there is a period where previous contractual arrangements have had binding obligations where the occupier is required to pay in return for living in the premises. However there are times when a situation occurs that results in a period where obligations can be muddied.
In these cases do you believe the occupier is still obligated to pay, or are they entitled to stay because they may be deemed to have been caught in unforuntate circumstances?
The poll provides two options
Yes - they should pay if they stay or a waiting a court or tribunal judgement; or
No - they should not have to pay a cent as long as they can stay in the place.
I'm sure there are many shades of grey to this, for these responses please feel free to add your comments in this thread.
Regards
Michael
I thought I'd run a poll on a topic close to my heart and as I have seen on the forum, I'm sure many others. In a situation that involves...
(a) Tenant in rental property who has been evicted because they have failed to pay rent; or
(b) Wrappee in process of contract termination because they have breached the terms of an instalment contract.
In both cases there is a period where previous contractual arrangements have had binding obligations where the occupier is required to pay in return for living in the premises. However there are times when a situation occurs that results in a period where obligations can be muddied.
In these cases do you believe the occupier is still obligated to pay, or are they entitled to stay because they may be deemed to have been caught in unforuntate circumstances?
The poll provides two options
Yes - they should pay if they stay or a waiting a court or tribunal judgement; or
No - they should not have to pay a cent as long as they can stay in the place.
I'm sure there are many shades of grey to this, for these responses please feel free to add your comments in this thread.
Regards
Michael
