As a property manager, I attend a lot of tribunal hearings.
One of the most interesting things I notice is the intention behind something is considered not just the legal facts - I think this is a great side of the law.
For example, I have a good friend who is renting on a periodic lease through a private landlord. Her landlord has just given her 60 days notice for vacant possession due to needing the property for private use.
My friend requires more than 60 days so she rang me to ask what she can do.
When I looked into it, I informed her that the 60 days will be void because the notice was not served on the appropriate form, it was sent by letter on a piece of paper. Also mail time was not considered so it's less than 60 days - voided twice!
My friend was very happy and immediately started scheming that she could wait until 50 days and then contact the landlords and tell them that she is not moving out and the need to begin the 60 days over again because it is void.
Now this is where intention comes in and will be factored in when in front of a tribunal judge. If she knew it was void and went along with it with the intention of prolonging the time due to someone else's error, it will be taken into consideration at the ruling and she could still be ordered to leave in the 60 days or another negotiated time that may not be the 60 days started over.
My question for the legal guys, as I've seen this intention thing happen often, is what do judges look for and how is the evidence weighed to reach a conclusive decision?
One of the most interesting things I notice is the intention behind something is considered not just the legal facts - I think this is a great side of the law.
For example, I have a good friend who is renting on a periodic lease through a private landlord. Her landlord has just given her 60 days notice for vacant possession due to needing the property for private use.
My friend requires more than 60 days so she rang me to ask what she can do.
When I looked into it, I informed her that the 60 days will be void because the notice was not served on the appropriate form, it was sent by letter on a piece of paper. Also mail time was not considered so it's less than 60 days - voided twice!
My friend was very happy and immediately started scheming that she could wait until 50 days and then contact the landlords and tell them that she is not moving out and the need to begin the 60 days over again because it is void.
Now this is where intention comes in and will be factored in when in front of a tribunal judge. If she knew it was void and went along with it with the intention of prolonging the time due to someone else's error, it will be taken into consideration at the ruling and she could still be ordered to leave in the 60 days or another negotiated time that may not be the 60 days started over.
My question for the legal guys, as I've seen this intention thing happen often, is what do judges look for and how is the evidence weighed to reach a conclusive decision?