Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work
Posted by johncodie on 3/02/10
Maintaing a property is the responsibility of the owner as is the failure to
maintain or failure to inform of defects. The standard is higher if the
property is put up for lease than if the owner uses it themselves; when it
is put up for residential lease, there is an unspoken and implied warranty
of habitability. There are two standards; and under the present laws the renter and the
landlord are by law to establish a standard of occupancy that both are willing
to abide. The renter has full right to inspection prior to occupancy, and
testing as required. The renter has the right to make notice of deficiencies
and amend deficienceis to accomodate. The renter is not forced to confinment
as is a prisoner. The landlord is not forced to bring accomodations up to a
renters standards of health. The law is clear that the dwelling does not have
to be preceived as perfect; not is the minimum occupancy requirements
limited. The key here is the two individuals are governed by a peer review. This makes litigation after a period of five years, or a single year for mold
illness very difficult to win. The premis is mold is not gold, to harbor and keep safe, it is to abandon. A
person that claims to have been gravely unknowingly affected to be able to
explain why their alergic response upon first occupancy was not triggered.
Don't expect a landlord to be a monitor of your health. You acquire the right
to privacy even when ill. Once occupied you have assumed the partnership, of
notification. "The Landlord is not forced to bring accomodations up to a
renters standards of health once given the opportunity for inspection.
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/22/10, by Sharon.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/23/10, by Johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/23/10, by Sharon.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/23/10, by johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/23/10, by sharon.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/24/10, by johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/24/10, by Deborah.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 2/25/10, by Sharon.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/01/10, by johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/01/10, by Rem Dude.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/01/10, by Deborah.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/02/10, by johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/02/10, by Deborah.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/03/10, by Sharon.
- Re: Case Requested, 3/03/10, by johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/03/10, by Rem Dude.
- Re: Case Requested, 3/04/10, by Sharon.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/04/10, by Sharon.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/04/10, by Rem Dude.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/05/10, by johncodie.
- Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work, 3/05/10, by Deborah.
- Re: Mold Fraud, 3/12/10, by FYI.
- Re: Mold Fraud, 3/12/10, by Deborah.
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.