What does this &quot;no waiver&quot; clause mean? In a resedential lease, what does this paragraph mean? No Waiver. The failure of either party to insist in any instance upon the strict keeping, observance or performance of any provision of this Lease or to exercise any election in this Lease shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of such provision, but the same shall continue and remain in full force and effect. No waiver or modification by either party of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The receipt and retention by the Landlord of Rent with knowledge of the breach of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of such breach. Also is this considered a clause or provision?
It means that if one party breaks the lease and the other party chooses not to enforce their rights in relation to the breach, it doesn't mean that they won't enforce their rights the next time that provision is breached unless they agree that in writing thereby changing the agreement. Which may just be the longest coherent sentence I have ever written.
The onus lies on the landlord The landlord is the one asserting a right (to evict), therefore, they bear the onus of proving that they have that right. The court will look at the evidence both parties have that the notice was served. For the tenant this is likely to be brief testimony that they never received it. For the landlord, they will testify as to how it was served (personal service, mail etc.) and provide evidence that supports that testimony (photos of them handing it to the tenant, receipts for mail etc.). Please note that only some types of service are valid and laws around service are highly technical. The court will give weight to the evidence (decide what they believe and what they don’t, who they find reliable and who they don’t). The onus in a civil case is “the balance of probabilities” which means if they find the landlord’s version more likely then the notice was served. If they find the tenant’s more likely or both equally likely, it wasn’t.
Actually, the concept "right" means that it can be waived: you may exercise the right, but do not have to. If it is an obligation, you can't "waive" the obligation; but the right to free speech does not mean that you must speak, and the right to bear arms does not mean that you must bear arms. You may decline to exercise, or waive, a right. Sternlight 16 Ohio St. J. On Disp. Resol. 669 (2001) in "Mandatory Binding Arbitration and the Demise of the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial" partially addresses this (the focus though is on binding arbitration). One thing to note is that the Seventh Amendment does not appear to apply to issues in state court (it is a separate and fascinating question to wonder what parts of The Constitution are incorporated against states, and why). All is not lost for the constitutional question, we just need a different constitution. By the agreement terms, "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Therefore, New York's Constitution (Article 1 Sect 2) is also applicable: Trial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. Thus, the right may be waived. Waiver of a right to jury trial is not the same as waiver of the right to trial: what the agreement says is that litigants would have a civil bench trial, where the judge determines whether there was a breach. In New York, NY CPLR § 4102 allows parties to waive civil trial by jury (and unlike California), such waiver terms have been upheld, but the courts have recognized that there is a problem, so it's not always obvious whether such waivers in contracts are legal.
No Common law jurisdictions read contracts objectively - that is if it unambiguously states what the parties agreed to then that is what the parties agreed to. If that includes selling your offspring into slavery or mortgaging your organs then so be it (such terms would be void for illegality but if they weren’t illegal then what it says is what happens). Terms can be implied into contracts but only in limited circumstances: implied by statute. A statute can imply a term if a contract doesn’t. A statute can also override an explicit term with the statute’s term. implied by custom. Customary usage in an industry or market can be implied into a contract. implied by past dealings. If the parties have repeatedly entered into contracts, terms may be implied by their past conduct. implied at law. Specific categories of contracts can assume implied terms, for example, property leases imply that the tenant will have quiet enjoyment of the premises. Such terms can be overridden by explicit terms. implied by fact. Such terms must be reasonable and equitable; necessary to give business efficiency to the contract. For example, the contract will not work effectively without the term; so obvious that it ‘goes without saying’. An impartial bystander in the position of the parties should be able to assume that the term is part of the contract; capable of clear expression; and not contradict any other terms of the contract. If there is no clause permitting the host to cancel the contract, there is no basis for implying one: the host cannot cancel the contract. If they do they are repudiating the contract and the other pa try can sue for damages.
It is the terms of the lease that govern what you may and may not do, so if pets are not disallowed, they are allowed. You are not a party to the contract between the landlord and the agent, so whatever the landlord may have told the agent is technically irrelevant to you. However, this may be an indication that the landlord plans to change policy; it might also mean that the agent misunderstood something. That is where you stand legally.
This is not a "if you breach the contract we may sue you" clause. This is a clause which says "if we find you trying to breach the contract, we can ask a court to stop you from doing so (even though you may not have actually breached the contract at that point in time)". The provision entitles the aggrieved party to specific relief - in this case, by the way of an injunction. Specific relief means relief of certain determined nature or of a specific kind, rather than a general relief or damages or compensation. Essentially, the clause that provides that if the receiving party of the confidential information threatens to disclose such information, the disclosing party shall be entitled to ask the court to specifically order the receiving party not to disclose the confidential information (as opposed to post-facto asking for damages for the harm caused by reason of such disclosure). In the absence of this provision, a court may rule that the disclosing party has no locus to take pre-emptive legal action, as no damage has been caused yet by the other party.
on behalf means that the party of the agreement is the landlord, not the property manager. The contract both entitles and obliges the landlord, not the property manager. The property manager is not a party of the contract. So the fact that the property manager is fired completely unrelated to the existing contract. Additionally, in most jurisdictions that I know of, even if the property changed ownership (the landlord sold or gifted it, or the landlord died and it was inherited by someone) the contract would still be in force, as the change of situations would not invalidated the rights and obligations of the other parties.
Can the renter declare the contract to be void because of the death of the only other party to the contract? No. The estate of the decedent steps into the shoes of the decedent and the executor of the decedent's estate can enforce the lease. What if one of the heirs comes to the renter and tries to add additional conditions? The heirs do not have the authority to modify the lease without the tenant's consent, although the tenant knows that the lease may be less likely to be renewed if the tenant does not consent. Also, the heirs, strictly speaking, don't have the authority to do anything. Only an executor duly appointed by a court does.