Why do lease agreements commonly prohibit animals and also specifically prohibit reptiles? I was reading over my lease agreement and noticed the following clause: No animals or reptiles of any kind may be kept in or about the leased premises. I thought it odd that the language seems to single out reptiles as though such creatures were somehow not included under the "animals" umbrella. I did a search of the phrase to see if it is common, and it seems that many lease agreements use this phrase. Why do these documents, which are otherwise quite precise and carefully worded, make such an odd distinction?
Because animal has several definitions, specifically: 2 b : Mammal While you are probably thinking of: 1 : any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (such as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (such as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation While reptiles are captured by 1, they aren't by 2 b. This wording aviods any dispute over which definition is meant.
Usually these words refer to whether something (e.g. a law or government action) is or is not in accordance with the Constitution, including its amendments, as currently interpreted by US courts including the Supreme Court. So in view of Chaplinsky, the Constitution (as interpreted) does not protect "fighting words", and therefore a law that forbids "fighting words" is constitutional. As phoog points out in the comments, the word can also be used to refer to whether something is in accordance with the Constitution, as the speaker thinks it ought to be interpreted. So somebody might say that a certain law or action is (un)constitutional, even if a court has not considered it, if their own personal interpretation of the Constitution is (or isn't) consistent with it. Or, if a court has struck it down (or upheld it) but the speaker thinks they erred in doing so.
No one can give you an elephant without your consent. If you don't consent, then it doesn't matter what provisos they spoke to you. They didn't give you an elephant at all. They abandoned an elephant on your property. You owe them no consideration. Call animal control and they make it &quot;go away&quot; (read: probably to a welcoming zoo). If you did consent, now the question arises of whether it is legal. And that works out exactly the same as if you'd purchased the elephant yourself.
In general, and in particular in New Jersey, a new owner takes possession subject to existing rental agreements, and in particular subject to existing leases, unless there is a provision in the lease to the contrary. This happens automatically, by law. Thus any lease is as enforceable against the new owner as it would have been against the old. But how enforceable is this arbitration agreement? How enforceable would it have been against the old owner O? The basic fact about a month-to-month tenancy is that either party may end it on one month's notice, for any reason or none. Moreover, when a new owner intds to occupy the premises personally, or use them for his or her family, the requirement to honor a previous lease is, in general, not applicable. T might be able to force N to go through arbitration, depending on the wording of the agreement, and on whether the written lease applies at all after the end of the first year (which it may well not). But on the facts as stated in the question, T would lose in arbitration as well as in court, and if there is any increased expense because of the arbitration, T would be obliged tom pay it. Let us look at the actual NJ law N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 provides that: any lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance, or for a part of a year, or for one or more years, of any houses, buildings, lands or tenements, ... may be removed from such premises by the Superior Court, Law Division, Special Civil Part in an action in the following cases: a. Where such person holds over and continues in possession of all or any part of the demised premises after the expiration of his term, and after demand made and written notice given by the landlord or his agent, for delivery of possession thereof. The notice shall be served either personally upon the tenant or such person in possession by giving him a copy thereof or by leaving a copy of the same at his usual place of abode with a member of his family above the age of 14 years. [emphasis added] Section 2A:18-56 provides that: No judgment for possession in cases specified in paragraph &quot;a.&quot; of section 2A:18-53 of this Title shall be ordered unless: a. The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or ? b. The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; [emphasis added] Section 2A:18-57 provides that: If no sufficient cause is shown to the contrary when the action comes on for trial, the court shall issue its warrant to any officer of the court, commanding him to remove all persons from the premises, and to put the claimant into full possession thereof, and to levy and make the costs out of the goods and chattels of the person in possession. No warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession, except as provided for in chapter 42 of this Title. Section 2A:18-61.1 provides that: No lessee or tenant or the assigns, under-tenants or legal representatives of such lessee or tenant may be removed by the Superior Court from any house, building, mobile home or land in a mobile home park or tenement leased for residential purposes, other than (1) owner-occupied premises with not more than two rental units or a hotel, motel or other guesthouse or part thereof rented to a transient guest or seasonal tenant; ... except upon establishment of one of the following grounds as good cause ... [emphasis in original] h. The owner seeks to retire permanently the residential building or the mobile home park from residential use or use as a mobile home park But note that good cause is not required for an owner-occupied dwelling with no more than two rental units. T would be wise to consult a lawyer knowledgeable about landlord/tenant law in NJ before attempting to contest the notice or eviction.
The entire purpose of the Entire Agreement clause is to say that this contract is the agreement, and anything previously negotiated is not part of the agreement. I don't know why they would fail to include that in the contract.
The parties can be required under oath to explain what they understand the plain meaning of the words to be. Where they disagree about the plain meaning of the words, they can use expert witnesses to give weight to their interpretation. Once the judge determines the plain meaning of the words (either by agreement between the parties or by reference to expert witnesses or other evidence), it is a matter of standard contract interpretation. Even in the case of an idioticon, where no expert witnesses are available, if the disagreement between the parties surrounds only a few words, the judge could find that there is no actual ambiguity because the context. Also, the judge could refer to parole evidence if needed. The purpose of the written contract is to provide evidence of your agreement. It is a bad idea to create evidence that you both may want to rely upon at some point if nobody else can understand it.
B and C have a contract with A In return for paying 3 months rent, B and C will remove A from the lease. This has all the required elements to be a contract. B and C have fulfilled their obligations and A hasn’t. B &amp; C could sue A for damages. They would need to prove that there was such an agreement and that they agreement was a legally binding contract. Is this agreement written down? Was it witnessed by impartial third parties? What evidence of this agreement do you actually have? If A says they agreed to X, yet B &amp; C say they agreed to Y: what evidence exists to show who is right and who is wrong? Failing to fulfill the obligations of a contract is not fraud. For there to be fraud, B &amp; C would have to prove that A never intended to comply by the terms of the agreement. Given that the terms of the agreement are somewhat ambiguous, this would be very difficult. This seems to be more of a case where [Hanlon's Razor]: &quot;Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.&quot; That is, A's actions are more likely to be the result of a misunderstanding (by A, or B &amp; C, or both) than a deliberate plan of deception. The landlord is not involved - they removed A from the lease at the request of A, B &amp; C; they’ve done what they’re required to do.
It is legal for a property owner to have a vehicle towed off of their property, if the vehicle is there without permission. If you have a vehicle with expired tags, your permission to park there may have been rescinded as of that notice. It is possible that a parking spot is part of the lease, in which case it would be a breach of contract for them to have your car towed. However, even if it's in the lease, if it is required by law, or specifically mentioned in the lease (i.e. "must be registered"), it is legal to tow the car. The city claims the right to regulate vehicles even parked on private property: Abandoned vehicles are defined as: vehicles that do not bear a license plate, or on which the displayed license plate is invalid, unless said vehicle is stored within a completely enclosed building or unless it is stored on a bona fide sales lot or an automobile storage yard or automobile wrecking yard, which threaten or endanger public safety or welfare; create a blighting influence upon the neighborhood where the vehicle rests, or; is, or may reasonably become, infested, or inhabited by rodents, vermin or other animals, or may furnish a breeding place for rodents, vermin or other animals. Inoperable, when referring to a vehicle, means the vehicle is incapable of being immediately driven, moved, or pulled in the manner for which it is intended or designed. The specific underlying ordinance Sec. 518.203(1) says No person in charge or control of any property within the city whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee or otherwise, shall allow any junk or abandoned vehicle to remain on any private or public property within the city longer than 15 days; and no person shall leave any such vehicle on any property within the city for a longer time than 15 days; except that this article shall not apply to a vehicle on the premises of a business enterprise licensed and operated in a lawful place and manner, to repair vehicles with current license or those places where active restoration is taking place and both activities are taking place within a closed building. An abandoned vehicle is defined as a vehicle that does not bear a license plate, or if the displayed license plate is invalid, unless said vehicle is stored within a completely enclosed building or unless it is stored on a bona fide automobile sales lot or an automobile storage yard or automobile wrecking yard The ordinance does not apparently define "valid license plate", but from state law, we can determine that you affix a "validation sticker" to your "registration license plate", so without a current tag, the license is not valid. Apparently the practice of towing cars with expired tags is not isolated in Florida: an untagged vehicle may not be visible to the public.