Are Landlord&#39;s exclusion clauses of &quot;any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property&quot; too onerous on Tenant? I want to lease office space in England. I'm scared that Tenancy Agreement's Exclusion Clauses exclude too much! Aren't they too harsh on me? How's it fair for Landlord to exclude so much, and make me bear burden of &quot;any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant&quot;? I read this Gowling WLG website dated 02 July 2018 on exclusion clauses and the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977. Indubitably I and Landlord don't have equal bargaining power! Landlord's more wealthier and powerful than me! For example, Landlord and its agents are responsible for operating &quot;lifts escalators and air conditioning system … &quot; (see 7.1a) and hiring security &quot;watchman&quot; (see 7.1e). Thus shouldn't they liable &quot;In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage …&quot; (see 7.1a and 7.1e)? SECTION VII. EXCLUSIONS. 7.1 The Landlord and its agents shall not in any circumstances be liable to the Tenant, occupier or any other person whomsoever :- Common Services and Facilities (a) In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant, occupier or any such other person caused by or through or in any way owing to any defect in or failure or breakdown or suspension of the lifts escalators and air-conditioning system (if any) condenser water supply system (if any) electric power and water supplies, or any other common services and facilities provided in the said building for any reason whatsoever including negligent or wrongful acts or omissions by independent contractors; or Electricity/Gas/Water Supply (b) In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant, occupier or any such other person caused by or through or in any way owing to any failure, malfunction, explosion or suspension of the electricity or power or gas or water supply or other utility to the said building or the said premises for any reason whatsoever; or Fire and Overflow of Water, Vermin (c) In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant, occupier or any such other person caused by or through or in any way owing to the escape or spread of fire, smoke or fumes or any other substance or thing or overflow or leakage of water or vibrations from anywhere within the said building or the influx of rain water or sea water into the said building or the said premises or typhoon, landslide, subsidence of the ground or the flooding or the activity of termites, roaches, mice, rats or other pests or vermin in the said building or the act neglect default or omission of the tenants and occupiers of neighbouring premises or the defective or damaged condition of the said premises or the said building or the furnishings, fixtures and fittings therein or the dropping or falling of any article whatsoever from neighbouring premises; or Non-enforcement (d) In respect of any loss or damage howsoever caused by or through any non-enforcement of the provisions of the Deed, if any, in respect of the said building and such general rules, car park rules and club rules as may from time to time be made in accordance with the provisions of the Deed, if any, or non-observance thereof by any third party; or Security (e) For the security or safekeeping of the said premises or the said building or any persons or contents therein and in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the provision by the Landlord and/or its agents of any watchman and caretaker or any mechanical or electrical alarm systems (if any) of whatever nature shall not create any obligation on the part of the Landlord as to the security of the said premises or any contents therein and the responsibility for the same shall at all times rest with the Tenant; or Vehicles (f) For the security or supervision of or for any damage to or loss of vehicles or accessories or injury to persons or any damage resulting therefrom. And the Tenant shall indemnify and keep the Landlord fully indemnified against all claims and demands whatsoever made upon the Landlord by any servant agent employee contractor or licensee of the Tenant or any other person claiming through or under the Tenant as a result of any such loss or injury or damage aforesaid nor shall the rent and other charges hereinbefore mentioned or any part thereof abate or cease to be payable on account of the happening of any of the foregoing. Exemptions Extend to Landlord's Agent and Manager 7.2 The Tenant hereby acknowledges that the exemptions contained in this Section also extend to the Landlord's agent(s) and the manager of the said building; or No Duty for Landlord to Insure 7.3 Nothing in this Section shall be construed as imposing on the Landlord or the manager of the said building any duty to insure against any of the above liabilities; or [...]
As someone who acts for both landlords and tenants I would say that I have never seen exclusions for personal injury or death in a commercial lease. I would recommend that you have the whole lease reviewed by a solicitor dealing in commercial property, particularly as, as has been stated in another reply, exclusion of liability for personal injury or death is prohibited by UCTA. This would suggest there may be other provisions which, if not prohibited, are unreasonable and you should be aware of the commitments you are taking on prior to signing This pure speculation, but the fact that those clauses would not be in a standard lease precedent does make me wonder if the landlord has done a DIY job and produced a lease from the internet suitable for another jurisdiction.
You could first look for a force majeure clause in the lease which says something about natural disasters and the like. If there is a clause which says e.g. "Landlord will not be held responsible for problems arising from ice storms", that doesn't help you, but maybe it specifies e.g. rent reduction of $2/day for lack of electricity. That doesn't mean he can ignore the law. However, in this situation, a particular reading of the law ("there must be an infallible supply of electricity") imposes an impossible requirement on the landlord, and the courts probably won't require a landlord to do the impossible. It is not clear that your situation violates either the letter or the spirit of the law. Take clause (d): your "heating facilities" presumably conformed to applicable law at the time of installation and have since been maintained, and they are adequate, but they don't work if the grid doesn't supply power (and that is not a matter under the landlord's control). In other words, he provided the "infrastructure", and the problem is on the power company's end. Likewise "electrical lighting with wiring and electrical equipment" -- an ordinary interpretation of that clause is "wires and fixtures", and doesn't include "flow of electrons", which is supplied by your local power company.
The possession is not adverse during the tenancy, so the clock does not run. If the tenancy contract ends or is violated for [appropriate length depending on location] with no reaction from the landlord, that is grounds for adverse possession.
Summary: More information needed, but I have listed out some legal claims available to homeowners when they have similar concerns. There are several issues here which need elaboration before deciding if you can take legal action. The first is: "the destroyed some vegetation on my street." If the by "my street" you mean that the street is part of your property, you may sue the builders for trespass and/or damage to property. If the street isn't your property, but the vegetation is your property, you may sue them for destruction of your property. What you are probably looking for, however, is a prohibitive injunction. This is a court order forcing the builders to avoid doing something, e.g. An order forcing them to avoid using roads adjacent to your property. To obtain such an injunction you will have to prove that what they are doing is violating your rights, is somehow harmful to you or your property, or inevitably will do either of those things. One way to demonstrate this is if you can show that you have a claim under nuisance, or damage to property, or trespass. On the description you have given us, there isn't enough to say your rights are being violated, or that your property has come to harm or will come to harm because of their actions. You should also be aware of claims under nuisance. Nuisance is when someone is doing something that prevents you from "peaceful enjoyment of your land". It appears from your question that the actions of these builders have, in your mind, done this. However there are several aspects that have to be satisfied for this to amount to private nuisance: What the builder are doing must be a "continuing state of affairs." They may have annoyed you by trampling over vegetation, but if this is a "one-off" event, it is unlikely to amount to nuisance. A reasonable person must find the conduct to interfere with the enjoyment of their land. That is to say: it isn't enough that their conduct is making you unable to enjoy your land peacefully, you have to show that any reasonable person in the same situation would find this conduct unacceptable. Finally, the context of your neighbourhood matters: if the behaviour is something expected in a residential area, then it will not amount to a nuisance. For example, heavy drilling in an industrial location will not amount to a nuisance, while the same may do so in a normally quiet neighbourhood.
This could be a violation of the Fair Housing Act, but Fair Housing v. Roommate.com, 521 F.3d 1157 says that we find that the FHA doesn’t apply to the sharing of living units The crux of the argument is that a room in a house is not a "dwelling", since it is not a complete living unit. Whether or not courts outside the 9th Circuit follow suit remains to be seen. Florida state law (760.29) states exceptions to its anti-discrimination laws, covering for instance Any single-family house sold or rented by its owner, provided such private individual owner does not own more than three single-family houses at any one time. If that is the case, then the exemption exists if the rental a. Without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate licensee or such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such licensee or person; and b. Without the publication, posting, or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of s. 760.23(3) Another exemption exists if Rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his or her residence. Your attorney (hint) will be able to interpret that complicated section of the law.
Read your policy Insurance contracts spell out in excruciating detail in which circumstances they are on risk and which they aren’t. For example. In that policy, page 39 excludes &quot;Loss or damage caused by lopping or felling of trees when this is performed or authorised by you, your family, or a household member&quot;. So DIY tree felling is at your risk. So is authorising a contractor to fell a tree (although you would presumably look to the contractor's insurer for restitution) You would be covered if a neighbour (or their contractor) dropped a tree onto your house or if a utility company did so. They didn't need or get your authorisation so the exclusion does not apply.
Anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. have exceptions for someone who rents a room in a landlord's own residence, but generally speaking, for other purposes, there is not a distinction in U.S. or Florida law. People who stay at a place with the permission of the owner for a very brief period of time and not pursuant to a lease, such as someone who gains use of a particular seat in a movie theater pursuant to a purchased ticket, is, however, not a tenant with the full rights of a tenant, and is instead a licensee who does not have a property right to use that space, only a contract that can be terminated by the property owner or their agent at will, potentially with breach of contract damages if this is done without justification, but not with liability for violating a tenant's rights. In some cases, someone whose housing, at least part of the time, is for the convenience of the employer, like a medical resident who uses a sleeping room at a hospital, or a member of the crew of a ship who sleeps on the ship incident to their duties, may have reduced rights relative to housing when their employment is terminated for cause, although this is only sometimes clearly enunciated in statutes or case law and the law would not be terribly consistent in this area.
I gather that the numerous ramifications you outline are merely contexts and that your main concern is about the application of contract law (contract law in the U.S. does not really vary among states). Thus, I will not really delve in the intricacies of --for instance-- privacy or copyright issues arising from the commercial use of a person's likeness that you mention in one of the scenarios. As a starting point, one needs to bear in mind that: a contract is an exchange of considerations under terms and conditions entered knowingly and willfully by the parties, which can be evidenced by the parties' subsequent conduct (that is, not just by signing a document); and a contract is unenforceable if it contravenes public policy and/or the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the questions are (1) whether a person knew or reasonably should have known about the terms &amp; conditions at or by the time of those events which trigger obligations pursuant to the contract; and (2) whether the provisions therein are unreasonable, illegal, or tantamount to a penalty, especially in the event that the party breaches or repudiates the alleged contract (see the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 356(2)). The scenario of house for sale entails various difficulties as per contract law and otherwise. Here are some of those issues: Are visitors properly (including "beforehand") notified about the "walkway clause"? If not, the contract is void because it cannot be said that visitors knew about &amp; accepted that condition. Does the house provide alternatives for lawful &amp; informed visitors to safely avoid the walkway? If not, then the seller/owner might end up incurring premises liability with respect to those visitors who get injured in making their reasonable effort not to trigger the "walkway clause". Is the house owner realistically able to prove that use of the walkway by lawful &amp; informed visitors is sufficiently "inconsistent with the offeror's ownership of offered property" so that triggering a house sale is a reasonable consequence (see Restatement at §69(2))? Is the owner-imposed mortgage rate compliant with state law pertaining to granting of credit &amp; loans? These exemplify only some of the burdensome complications when trying to enforce "contracts" which are extravagant or quite one-sided. Lastly, as a side note, the presumption that a person reading the poster and walking in the intended area does not thereby receive consideration is not necessarily accurate. As an example, the "intended area" could have been devised by an entity in the business of enjoyment and recreation, such as a private park. The person who deliberately walks in (regardless of whether he read the poster) certainly receives a consideration, which is the amusement or recreation for which the park was designed.