Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is not like a credit card agreement with explicitly written terms that are not open for interpretation, so I don't know where you get these illogical analogies. Regardless of who has the law on their side, abusing a self-crafted and generically-written lease that intrudes on someone's private life on a whim is immoral and unethical. He did not write in the contract "at the last month of the lease, I intend to intrude in your living area at any time I choose without reasonable notice". Yes, he wrote the thing so generic that it includes nonsense behavior like that, but he did not ever say anything about this in a "deal" as you like to call it. Under the same lease, he could sneak into my room every night at 2AM and watch me sleep, and that would be within the same clause, and according to you that would not be abuse of the clause since I signed it. I have always been cooperative with them since I began with them, so I don't know where you are coming from that I am in the wrong, as if I provoked this.
If you want to play the "you signed it, you live with it" game, you should realize that your own name, and most other people's for that matter, is probably on more than one document at some point in your life that exposes you to potential abuse as well, and you should consider yourself lucky you aren't involved with someone with more greed than morals in their life who would actually dare to abuse it since you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable.
From your original post:
"the clause from our lease that says they can enter as they wish and bring others in for any reason they see fit"
If that was in the lease, and you signed it, that DOES count as "explicitly written terms that are not open for interpretation". *You're* the one that's trying to reinterpret it now.
I'd contact the Chicago Bar Association Lawyer Referral to ask for a landlord-tenant consultation. This is generally low or no-cost and you should be given some kind of advice. Take the lease with you.
It is quite likely there is a court ruling which would limit the "any time for any reason" clause in the lease and which would hold. Case law is not as good as statutory, but it often is close.
Unless you know how to research case law, it's best to ask an attorney.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is not like a credit card agreement with explicitly written terms that are not open for interpretation, so I don't know where you get these illogical analogies. Regardless of who has the law on their side, abusing a self-crafted and generically-written lease that intrudes on someone's private life on a whim is immoral and unethical. He did not write in the contract "at the last month of the lease, I intend to intrude in your living area at any time I choose without reasonable notice". Yes, he wrote the thing so generic that it includes nonsense behavior like that, but he did not ever say anything about this in a "deal" as you like to call it. Under the same lease, he could sneak into my room every night at 2AM and watch me sleep, and that would be within the same clause, and according to you that would not be abuse of the clause since I signed it. I have always been cooperative with them since I began with them, so I don't know where you are coming from that I am in the wrong, as if I provoked this.
If you want to play the "you signed it, you live with it" game, you should realize that your own name, and most other people's for that matter, is probably on more than one document at some point in your life that exposes you to potential abuse as well, and you should consider yourself lucky you aren't involved with someone with more greed than morals in their life who would actually dare to abuse it since you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable.
I'm sorry dude, but I stand by what I said, and I'll throw a "cry me a river" into the mix just for good measure.
He is not "abusing" the clause by going inside the property while you are not home to sit on your couch, eat your chips, and watch your cable tv.
He is entering the home to show the property to prospective tenants. That certainly falls withing acceptable land-lording behavior, and I would assume that such would hold up in court. Regardless of this fact, you entered this discussion with your mind already made-up, and must have a very hard time tolerating differing opinions, such as mine and others who have posted telling you that you are wrong. Now, note the keywords here being "you are wrong", which doesn't mean that what your landlord is doing is necessarily right; but in the end, you are more wrong than your landlord is right.
Certainly let us know how this ends up, and best of luck.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is not like a credit card agreement with explicitly written terms that are not open for interpretation, so I don't know where you get these illogical analogies. Regardless of who has the law on their side, abusing a self-crafted and generically-written lease that intrudes on someone's private life on a whim is immoral and unethical. He did not write in the contract "at the last month of the lease, I intend to intrude in your living area at any time I choose without reasonable notice". Yes, he wrote the thing so generic that it includes nonsense behavior like that, but he did not ever say anything about this in a "deal" as you like to call it. Under the same lease, he could sneak into my room every night at 2AM and watch me sleep, and that would be within the same clause, and according to you that would not be abuse of the clause since I signed it. I have always been cooperative with them since I began with them, so I don't know where you are coming from that I am in the wrong, as if I provoked this.
If you want to play the "you signed it, you live with it" game, you should realize that your own name, and most other people's for that matter, is probably on more than one document at some point in your life that exposes you to potential abuse as well, and you should consider yourself lucky you aren't involved with someone with more greed than morals in their life who would actually dare to abuse it since you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable.
From your original post:
"the clause from our lease that says they can enter as they wish and bring others in for any reason they see fit"
If that was in the lease, and you signed it, that DOES count as "explicitly written terms that are not open for interpretation". *You're* the one that's trying to reinterpret it now.
This. You signed a lease which indicates, legally, that you read it, as was YOUR responsibility in the first place as, presumably, an adult capable of making a contract in the first place.
That you now do not like what you agreed to or that you never read the legal document that you signed in the first place changes nothing about the fact that you did, indeed, agree by signing to its terms, and all that complaining about it does makes you look like someone who signs legal documents making promises without reading them or like someone who tries to get out of legal promises made when they are inconvenient (in other words, the very kind of person that makes it necessary for legal documents to exist in the first place).
Are you that kind of person, or aren't you? If you aren't, suck it up, live by the agreement you signed, and move on, being wiser the next time around by reading and comprehending every clause in a contract (or having an attorney read it for you) before signing.
Last edited by TexasHorseLady; 05-18-2012 at 07:44 AM..
Reason: typo
This. You signed a lease which indicates, legally, that you read it, as was YOUR responsibility in the first place as, presumably, an adult capable of making a contract in the first place.
That you now do not like what you agreed to or that you never read the legal document that you signed in the first place changes nothing about the fact that you did, indeed, agree by signing to its terms, and all that complaining about it does makes you look like someone who signs legal documents making promises without reading them or like someone who tries to get out of legal promises made when they are inconvenient (in other words, the very kind of person that makes it necessary for legal documents to exist in the first place).
Are you that kind of person, or aren't you? If you aren't, suck it up, live by the agreement you signed, and move on, being wiser the next time around by reading and comprehending every clause in a contract (or having an attorney read it for you) before signing.
May I ask, what is your stance on my example that he can come into my room at 2AM every night and stare at me while I sleep, since the same clause includes this behavior as the agreement by your logic, and I signed the lease?
In other words, should I be required to ask the creator of the lease to include EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO (and yes, there are infinite ridiculous scenarios that a very generally-written clause can include as a signed agreement) that I would not agree to? Under your logic, an appropriate lease for me to have signed would go something like "The lessor shall have complete access to the premises at any time he sees fit, except under the following circumstances: ... begin list 1 to infinity of any exceptions that I would not agree to including - walking into my apartment with a convict, with a live tv broadcasting team, by himself at 2AM" and then somewhere in there it would say if he wants to show my apartment he has to do it with a reasonable notice, etc.
Do you begin to see where your argument is absurd? There has to be reason and fairness when you interpret such ambiguous clauses. Also, I do not believe a lease is legally authoritative as you seem to imply. If i sign a lease that says the landlord has permission to come in at any time and cut off my arms and legs or break any other laws, that, because I signed it, he will get away with it? Please use more common sense when you want to hold his "holy lease" in such high regard just because I signed it from a reasonable and sane perspective.
Read this if what I'm explaining does not make sense, it is not some concept I've made up with in an attempt to have my way or weasel out of something I signed:
I can't believe completely anonymous people would take sides with someone who chooses to bully another like this, even when they are wrong legally. Luckily for my lessor, they chose to abuse the contract at the end (how convenient?) of the lease when I would have little motivation to pursue this legally other than on the basis of principles and self-respect. From doing the little research that I have, legal concepts seems to be overwhelmingly in my favor.
Last edited by darkfrog22; 05-18-2012 at 11:03 AM..
May I ask, what is your stance on my example that he can come into my room at 2AM every night and stare at me while I sleep, since the same clause includes this behavior as the agreement by your logic, and I signed the lease?
In other words, should I be required to ask the creator of the lease to include EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO (and yes, there are infinite ridiculous scenarios that a very generally-written clause can include as a signed agreement) that I would not agree to? Under your logic, an appropriate lease for me to have signed would go something like "The lessor shall have complete access to the premises at any time he sees fit, except under the following circumstances: ... begin list 1 to infinity of any exceptions that I would not agree to including - walking into my apartment with a convict, with a live tv broadcasting team, by himself at 2AM" and then somewhere in there it would say if he wants to show my apartment he has to do it with a reasonable notice, etc.
Do you begin to see where your argument is absurd? There has to be reason and fairness when you interpret such ambiguous clauses. Also, I do not believe a lease is legally authoritative as you seem to imply. If i sign a lease that says the landlord has permission to come in at any time and cut off my arms and legs or break any other laws, that, because I signed it, he will get away with it? Please use more common sense when you want to hold his "holy lease" in such high regard just because I signed it from a reasonable and sane perspective.
Read this if what I'm explaining does not make sense, it is not some concept I've made up with in an attempt to have my way or weasel out of something I signed:
I can't believe completely anonymous people would take sides with someone who chooses to bully another like this, even when they are wrong legally. Luckily for my lessor, they chose to abuse the contract at the end (how convenient?) of the lease when I would have little motivation to pursue this legally other than on the basis of principles and self-respect. From doing the little research that I have, legal concepts seems to be overwhelmingly in my favor.
And yet you want those same anonymous people to take your side over someone who has a written lease with you that is apparently in accord with state law, who has not done anything like coming into your room and standing over you at 2:00 a.m. but who has simply shown the property to prospective tenants during normal waking (not business - remember, most good tenants will have jobs that would preclude their being there during normal business hours) as is allowed in the lease, and who is not here to give their side of the story.
By the way, a lease, as long as it is in accord with the law in your state regarding such, is as "authoritative" as is any other contract. No more, no less.
You signed the lease apparently without reading it, which was your responsibility (amazing how many people simply don't get the concept of those two little words) at the time, and now you are choosing to abuse the contract at the end (how convenient) when you're not likely to incur any backlash for it.
And yet you want those same anonymous people to take your side over someone who has a written lease with you that is apparently in accord with state law, who has not done anything like coming into your room and standing over you at 2:00 a.m. but who has simply shown the property to prospective tenants during normal waking (not business - remember, most good tenants will have jobs that would preclude their being there during normal business hours) as is allowed in the lease, and who is not here to give their side of the story.
By the way, a lease, as long as it is in accord with the law in your state regarding such, is as "authoritative" as is any other contract. No more, no less.
You signed the lease apparently without reading it, which was your responsibility (amazing how many people simply don't get the concept of those two little words) at the time, and now you are choosing to abuse the contract at the end (how convenient) when you're not likely to incur any backlash for it.
So you have basically chosen to ignore my last post with all the little nice details, logic, reason, and legal conceptual facts other than the part where you choose to defend your argument by repeating what you said before? I wish I could ignore logic, reason, and facts too.
Can you tell me how you choose to consider 2AM unreasonable, I quote "who has not done anything like coming into your room and standing over you at 2:00 a.m.". But coming into someone's home while they are away from home, (yes it is a home, and I pay them rent - this is not some privileged expectation to consider it my home) 2 hours after short notice - which is illegal in pretty much any other state that has a law for this - , is reasonable?
Can you draw a line between 2 points that lie in the same plane (both 2AM and 2 hours short notice both fall under agreement in the same lease clause), but then choose to say they exist on different planes (one is ok and the other isn't)? How do you do that . . is that called interpretation? I thought the lease is not open to interpretation, its law according to you and the others who support your stance have already dictated that I cannot interpret this clause to consider what is fair and unfair.
Your deduction that I did not read the lease is false. I read it once when I tried to help my friend who was under the lease first, and then I read it again when I signed it myself to help him. If you actually would read the links I pointed out to you, you could understand this:
I signed the lease, after reading it, under the conditions that I do not have leverage to alter the terms and with a rational and reasonable interpretation of the term.
AGAIN, please study these terms when you choose to respond to a post that discusses them, rather than ignoring them completely: Contra proferentem Standard form contract Unconscionability Contracts of adhesion
Last edited by darkfrog22; 05-18-2012 at 12:51 PM..
If the clause in question was so onerous to you, the time to question it would have been when you read the contract before you signed it. That's the bottom line. You're now trying to foist your own irresponsibility in not reading something before you signed it onto your landlord and claiming HE is the bad guy for showing the rental at reasonable hours (again, 5:15 p.m. is not unreasonable) because now you don't like the consequences of something you agreed to in writing.
That's really the bottom line.
Oh, as for ignoring things, I note that you somehow managed to ignore that you are amazed that anonymous people on the internet are taking the landlord's side while at the same time expecting those same anonymous people to take your side and that would be perfectly understandable and not amazing at all. Ponder the meaning of that for a moment.
OP, you need a consult with an attorney. Unless, as I stated previously, you know how to research case law. Rather than getting up in TexLady's face, you need to DO something about your situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
