Statute of limitations and constant damages Say someone builds a house improperly and damages accrue over the entire life of the house. Is the statute of limitations meaningless in these cases because it is constantly reset by the damages? Or is only the first damage counted? If there are repeat violations doesn't that mean I could sue anytime?
Limitations start to run when the prospective plaintiff first becomes or should have become aware of the cause of action Let’s give a concrete example. Let’s say a foundation starts to sink causing a wall to crack. The limitation period starts to run from when a prudent owner should have become aware of the cracking. Further, the builder is only liable for the foundation repair, initial cracking and the necessary costs the owner went to to prevent further damage. The owner has a legal duty to mitigate the loss; if they don’t then they are liable if, say, the wall collapses or the roof buckles.
The important question is: was the £200 a fine (which is paid to the state) or compensation (which is paid to you)? Assuming it was a fine He doesn't (at the moment) owe you anything. However you can sue him for damages. Usually a claim for damages is time-barred after six years (and it is now seven years). However you weren't able to sue him yourself until you were 18, so you may have a couple of years left. However the clock may have started ticking immediately after the attack, on the grounds your parents or guardians could have sued. Talk to a solictor about this possibility; they should give you a free 30 minute consultation, and would probably take a case on a contigency fee (no-win no-fee) basis if it has any chance. In principle, you could have applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation - but you are too late for that; you have to apply within two years (there are some exceptions, but none seem to apply to you). Assuming it was compensation He owes you £200. Now you need to enforce that payment - and again, the problem may be the six year clock. You will definitely need to talk to a lawyer about that. My gut feeling is that the £200 was probably a fine rather than compensation.
Often, evictions are bifurcated. An initial hearing determines all evidence necessary to determine if there is a default existing sufficient to justify an eviction, and if so, the eviction goes forward immediately despite the fact that not all issues in the case have been resolved. A later hearing resolved the precise dollar amount of any damages claim. If the grounds for eviction is non-payment of rent, and the amount of payments or the amount of obligations of the landlord that can be setoff against the rent due exceeds the amount of rent found to have not be paid, then it is a defense to an eviction in the initial possession phase. If the counterclaim is smaller than the amount of rent owed (or cannot for some reason be set off against the amount owed) then it is only at most, a setoff against a damages award in favor of the landlord. I'm have not researched, in particular, how this is handled in New Jersey, but I am providing this answer on the theory that some insight is better than nothing. For the purpose of this question assume the landlord does not dispute the tenants underlying claim. His only argument is that the tenant should counter sue and that it should not be raised as a defense for non payment / stop the eviction. If this is true, it is both an affirmative defense to the eviction claim and a basis for a counterclaim in most cases. The better practice would be to raise it both ways in the same lawsuit. But, if the counterclaim is not sufficient to overcome the claim that rent is owed and not paid in full, or triggers some other different alternative ground for an eviction (e.g., maybe the lease provides that application of a security deposit against rent owed is itself an event of default), then that wouldn't prevent an eviction.
No, such clauses are precise and common. The landlord wants to say: “we're not liable for anything”. Unfortunately for them, they can't say that because the law might still recognize some liability. So this construction achieves the next best thing: to the maximum extent possible, they will not be liable. What does this mean for you? If you want to sue them because you think they were liable for something, you won't be able to do that successfully – unless you can point to a liability they cannot disclaim. Yes, this might not always be entirely clear but that's why there are courts. On to your concrete objections: Firstly, it wrongly assumes that the &quot;law&quot; on exclusion clauses is settled and certain. Perhaps the case law is uncertain. Or there may not even be law. Which is why this construction says: we don't know where precisely the maximum is, but whatever the maximum is: we want it. Secondly, it wrongly assumes that &quot;the maximum extent&quot; can be handily identified. Perhaps Landlord and I disagree on what &quot;the maximum extent&quot; is. Either you can convince the landlord that they are liable and can settle this out of court. Or you go to court. Then, your opinion doesn't matter, only the court's judgement. Thirdly, the &quot;law&quot; can change. Then what's &quot;the maximum extent&quot; or &quot;law&quot;? This construction avoids this problem because it does not fix a certain list of liabilities that are included or excluded. Instead, it will disclaim maximum liability at any relevant point in time, which will likely be the time of the event giving rise to liability. If new laws are passed, they won't generally apply retroactively. However, new case law could update the interpretation of existing laws. What can you do? This is a business negotiation. You want that the landlord fulfils their duties, and they don't want to be on the hook if something bad happens. In particular, they don't want to be forced to pay for any missed profits or such. Maybe the clauses could be modified to ask for reasonable effort on the part of the landlord to mitigate certain events, in particular with regards to security. But in reality: you will have to get insurance to cover the cases you are concerned about. And some risks are just business risks.
I love Wikipedia to bits, but it's sometimes worth reading the &quot;talk&quot; pages as well as the article, and trying a few other sources. I think this one comes closer : Damages attempt to measure in financial terms the extent of harm a plaintiff has suffered because of a defendant's actions. In the paragraph you're translating, &quot;damages&quot; is used as a broad term : the text then goes on to mention &quot;losses, liabilities, claims, injuries, lawsuits, costs and expenses&quot; as specific forms of damages. &quot;Damages&quot; as highlighted in the translation is the word I would use, as it covers many different things with a financial effect on the plaintiff. &quot;Losses&quot; is more specific, and is already covered in the list that follows. Losses may be considered damages, but not all damages are losses.
The person responsible for the leak pays This is a general principle that if your stuff causes harm, you are responsible for it as well of the costs of doing what’s necessary to stop it. This might or might not be you. Assuming the water is normal “splash” that is making its way into the unit below then it will be the person who is responsible for maintaining the waterproofing in your bathroom - that might be you or it might be the common property owner, you would need to check your by-laws. Of course, this assumes your building is new enough to have waterproofing - older buildings just relied on the tiling. If so, this is almost certainly your responsibility. If instead, it’s a leak from a pipe or fixture, then the owner of that is responsible. That could be you or the building owner or even your downstairs neighbour. Again, check your by-laws. Edit The OP has indicated they are a tenant, not the owner. In this case, it’s nothing to do with you unless your lease says you are responsible for building maintenance or you have been negligent. Residential leases almost never do the former and, unless you did something stupid, like allowing the bath to overflow or having water balloon fights, you probably haven’t been negligent. Refer the matter to your landlord and ask your neighbour to direct all future correspondence to them.
If you claim ownership of property but do nothing with it for 12 years (not even collecting a £1 rent), then in due course ownership will pass to the tenants, under the doctrine of adverse possession. Your solicitor is the only person who can advise you properly, since he knows all the details; but ultimately you will have to choose between being on bad terms with these neighbours (including suing them for possession) and losing the garages. To deal with your edit: normally, just requesting the rent is enough, even if the tenants ignore every request. However, if they specifically refuse to pay anything, they are claiming that they own the garages not you, and if you do nothing you will lose possession eventually. If you sue them for possession now, you will probably win (assuming your question is accurate and complete), but every day weakens your case. Of course, suing will be expensive and damage your relationship; but it won't be any cheaper in the future.
Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels, and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else. Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.