The main change I'd want made is how is it determined that you caused the damage? We have been blamed several times for damage we didn't cause. No proof other than, "when we went up after you left we noticed the damage." No one checked after the last 15 vendors but because we were the last one onsite, we get blamed.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM, James Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > That's what we're thinking but I just wanted to throw it out there for > comments. I actually didn't intend to ask the question that I asked at the > end when I started writing this. I actually meant to ask for people's > opinions about whether they read that line the way we do or if we're > overthinking this. > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:48 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Advice on clause in "tower" contract > > > > I think you need to have your lawyer review it. My interpretation would > be this applies only if you caused the damage, then they have to give > written notice, then you have 30 days to fix it. If that interpretation is > correct, the language sounds reasonable. It all hinges on whether "written > notice of damage caused" would be interpreted by a court to mean both that > you caused the damage and that you received written notice. And not merely > a written allegation that you caused the damage. > > > > > > *From:* James Howard <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:39 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Advice on clause in "tower" contract > > > > We've been negotiating a "tower" contract with a municipality. We have > our standard template that we use with all of our towers and have that in > place with other municipalities. The current negotiation though has > evolved into them taking our template and saying their attorney is going to > modify it into "their contract". The distinction between whether it's > theirs or ours isn't the issue right now though. Apparently we've never > had any clauses specifically addressing "Repair of Premises" and they want > to add the clause below. We don't have any problem with repairing any > damage that we actually cause (or caused by our equipment) but this clause > as they've written it seems to indicate that if they notify us that we've > damaged it that we're liable even if we didn't do it and would like to > dispute that fact. We think it needs something added to allow for a > dispute resolution if we don't feel damage was caused by us. Any thoughts > on best way to address that? > > > > > > *10. Repair of Premises**. Upon written notice of damage to the Premises > caused by Licensee's agents or equipment, Licensee shall have thirty (30) > days to make any repairs necessary to restore the Premises to its original > condition at Licensee's expense. Should Licensee fail to make such repairs, > it shall be deemed a breach of this License. * > > > > > > > > James Howard > > LiteWire Internet Services, Inc. > > > ------------------------------ > > *Total Control Panel* > > Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net> > > To: [email protected] > <https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993&domain=litewire.net> > > From: > 0000014c2d5b5c0a-c1a59951-246a-45b1-a3ab-44582facea97-000...@amazonses.com > <https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=3144911620&domain=litewire.net> > > Remove > <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender-domain=1&rID=242260993&aID=3144911620&domain=litewire.net> > amazonses.com from my allow list > > *You received this message because the domain amazonses.com > <http://amazonses.com> is on your allow list.* > > >
