Most people want to move - even with AW being the new leasee, we have
no trust in the building owners not trying to screw us again by
ignoring contracts/the law.
I think you've missed a key detail -- AW doesn't appear to have much
faith either as they asked for an exit clause in this new lease.
(shit, we should have noticed that detail sooner, we had a copy last week)
As far as I'm concerned, being here with any exit clause, regardless of
stated intents by landlord or tennant to use such clauses or not is a no
go -- it gives parties the ability to demand a new deal too easilly
instead of honouring the existing one.
(Lots of FUD about this - they could call
in question any of a number of permits, they hire criminals every
morning in the basement, etc. We have no leverage and they have all of
it.)
I fully agree. The only real gun is the exit clause.
It would be extreme stupidity for a landlord to just suddenly lock doors
(prompting possible legal action) or initiate their own legal action
claiming violation of lease when they can just use the exit clause. The
former options are full of financial risk and uncertainty, the later
less so.
Locking the doors or initiating legal action only makes sense for a
landlord dealing with a tennant who's conduct is so bad that the risks
of keeping them over the exit period are worse then the risks of trying
to boot them faster.
The amount that six more months of electrical here would of entailed
would have been nothing compared court costs those useless nuclear
options would have entailed.
_______________________________________________
SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List
Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss
Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
