--- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > wrote: > > > > On Dec 18, 2006, at 4:59 AM, hugheshugo wrote: > > > > > I'm only half joking I know someone who has bought a sv apartment and > > > his contract states that the TMO reserves the right to enter his > > > house if they think he has changed anything, even the layout of the > > > kitchen or the colour of the wallpaper. > > > > Here in FF? Gotta be illegal--anybody know for sure? Marek? > > > > > Jeez all that and you only > > > have to donate 20% of the house value to the movement! > > > > > > **End** > > Not too conversant in contract law but, though you can include > anything in a contract, if a term or condition is practically speaking > unenforceable then it's just words on paper. Since it's an apartment > rather than a stand-alone, the presumption is that there is a > homeowners association or somesuch that governs shared bylaws and > conditions of the whole property of which the apartment or condo is a > sub-unit, and therefore they have some controlling power over changes > within. But that strikes me as unenforceable. Property is the big > cheese in American law. It's sacrosanct and unassailable in so many > ways and to have one's property rights so restricted (and by such an > arbitrary entity as any arm of the TMO) seems bogus. > > But I'm way out here in California trying to keep criminals out on the > street, so you'll want to take what I say on the subject with a > certain amount of caution. > > Marek >
I think it applies to all developments in the vastu site, stand-alone or otherwise. But the site I'm talking about is in England. I doubt that they would ever actually enforce it (hope not) I imagine the clause is there to let you know what is expected of you.
