can animals visit no pet apartments?
- Vox Populi ©
"glen" <gcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c149c29.02051...@posting.google.com...
> My girlfriend's sister has a small dog and she comes over 2 times a
> month for a couple of hours. Our apartment complex does not allow
> pets. The manager saw the dog and said we cannot have pets visiting.
> He told us to "get rid of the dog."
>
> We have a standard rental agreement.
>
> Is this legal?
Is the dog a pet?
What part of No Pets don't you comprehend?
> Can they tell us we can't have dogs visit for a couple
> of hours. Not overnight and not everyday.
What part of "No Pets" are you so completely and profoundly
ignorant of?
If you were any more stupid, the manager could ban *you* from
the premises, as you aren't much more evolved, intellectually,
than some *pets* ...
Any questions?
PS: Perhaps if you had the nose, mouth, urethra and anus of the dog
plugged or sewn shut during the visits, the manager wouldn't mind as much.
Or perhaps taking the dog to a taxidermist and having it stuffed would
assuage any qualms the landlord might have.
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins;
all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken, 1923
Dawn Baily
wrote:
>
>
>
>"glen" <gcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7c149c29.02051...@posting.google.com...
>> My girlfriend's sister has a small dog and she comes over 2 times a
>> month for a couple of hours. Our apartment complex does not allow
>> pets. The manager saw the dog and said we cannot have pets visiting.
>> He told us to "get rid of the dog."
>>
>> We have a standard rental agreement.
>>
>> Is this legal?
>
>Is the dog a pet?
>
>What part of No Pets don't you comprehend?
No pets means you cannot keep pets, not that you cannot have visitors
bring their dogs for brief visits.
>
>> Can they tell us we can't have dogs visit for a couple
>> of hours. Not overnight and not everyday.
No. They have no such right.
>
>What part of "No Pets" are you so completely and profoundly
>ignorant of?
No pets means you cannot keep pets, not that you cannot have visitors
bring their dogs for brief visits.
>
>If you were any more stupid, the manager could ban *you* from
>the premises, as you aren't much more evolved, intellectually,
>than some *pets* ...
The manager is overstepping his authority and should be sacked.
>
>Any questions?
>
>PS: Perhaps if you had the nose, mouth, urethra and anus of the dog
>plugged or sewn shut during the visits, the manager wouldn't mind as much.
>Or perhaps taking the dog to a taxidermist and having it stuffed would
>assuage any qualms the landlord might have.
No pets means you cannot keep pets, not that you cannot have visitors
bring their dogs for brief visits. What part of that is so hard to
understand?
--
Dawn
Animal lover.
suzanne.croft
"Dawn Baily" <Dawn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4oefeusaoo6fm8bqi...@4ax.com...
I agree for most part however, I am sure that there could be some clause on
the tenancy agreement that you take responsibility for your visitors, which,
in this strange world could extend to pets.
Anyhow as a human being I am extremely rude so, I would therefore tell the
manager that I am teaching the dog to use the doorbell and tell him on the
way in "not to fear, as when I wish to take a dump I will do so on your
doorstep as I dont shit on my own".
Animal lover also.
>
>
>
> --
> Dawn
> Animal lover.
KarmaKop
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"glen" <gcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:7c149c29.02051...@posting.google.com...
> >> My girlfriend's sister has a small dog and she comes over 2 times a
> >> month for a couple of hours. Our apartment complex does not allow
> >> pets. The manager saw the dog and said we cannot have pets visiting.
> >> He told us to "get rid of the dog."
> >>
> >> We have a standard rental agreement.
> >>
> >> Is this legal?
> >
> >Is the dog a pet?
> >
> >What part of No Pets don't you comprehend?
>
> No pets means you cannot keep pets, not that you cannot have visitors
> bring their dogs for brief visits.
Really? What planet of fools are you from?
I suppose No Smoking means you can have visitors who
smoke, and No Guns means you just can't keep guns
permanently, but can have them there temporarily?
> >
> >> Can they tell us we can't have dogs visit for a couple
> >> of hours. Not overnight and not everyday.
>
> No. They have no such right.
Complete bullshit.
> >
> >What part of "No Pets" are you so completely and profoundly
> >ignorant of?
>
> No pets means you cannot keep pets, not that you cannot have visitors
> bring their dogs for brief visits.
More insane bullshit. What part of "No Pets" do you fail to comprehend?
> >
> >If you were any more stupid, the manager could ban *you* from
> >the premises, as you aren't much more evolved, intellectually,
> >than some *pets* ...
>
> The manager is overstepping his authority and should be sacked.
Sez the village idiot.
> >Any questions?
> >
> >PS: Perhaps if you had the nose, mouth, urethra and anus of the dog
> >plugged or sewn shut during the visits, the manager wouldn't mind as
much.
> >Or perhaps taking the dog to a taxidermist and having it stuffed would
> >assuage any qualms the landlord might have.
>
> No pets means you cannot keep pets,
You really are a moron, aren't you?
> not that you cannot have visitors
> bring their dogs for brief visits. What part of that is so hard to
> understand?
The part where you claim to have graduated elementary school.
>
>
>
> --
> Dawn
> Animal lover.
And village idiot.
Marcus L. Rowland
<Dawn...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>No pets means you cannot keep pets, not that you cannot have visitors
>bring their dogs for brief visits. What part of that is so hard to
>understand?
>
This has been cross-posted to newsgroups in the USA, the UK, and
Australia; I don't know where it originally appeared, since the second
poster seems to have added a lot of groups as part of his trolling, but
internal evidence such as the phrase "apartment complex" suggests the
USA. You're in the UK, I think, can you be 100% sure this is correct
everywhere else in the world?
Follow-up set to uk.rec.pets.misc only.
--
Marcus L. Rowland (for Sam Snake & Cornelia, Murphy & Cobb)
"Boy... _These_ things are a cinch!"
[God makes the snake - Gary Larson]
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/ http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
Diogenes
neck trailer trash. Now STOP cross posting to can legal We do not want your crap
here.
Dawn Baily <Dawn...@hotmail.com>
>> On Fri, 17 May 2002 16:29:28 -0600, "- Vox Populi Š" <v...@popu.li>
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>More idiots. The law is different in different jurisdictions you ignorant red
>neck trailer trash. Now STOP cross posting to can legal We do not want your crap
>here.
Ah! So the definition of a "pet" is different in your country?
--
Bob.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.
Jaccy Cronmiller
Bob Brenchley. <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:gujheucfnio0guvqc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 11:25:45 GMT, Diogenes <dioge...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >More idiots. The law is different in different jurisdictions you ignorant
red
> >neck trailer trash. Now STOP cross posting to can legal We do not want
your crap
> >here.
>
> Ah! So the definition of a "pet" is different in your country?
UMMM MORON ALERT! what was said was the law is different in different
jurisdictions... not the definition of the word "pet" man... duh!!!
go eat your wheaties and shuddup!
Bob Brenchley.
Mmmmm TROLL ALERT!!!
It may interest you to know that the law is all about words. And if
the wording is "no pets" then that does not apply to someone with a
dog coming to visit you as the dog is not a pet being kept by you.
Now if the wording said "no animals" that would be a different kettle
of fish.
--
Bob.
Artificial intelligence is no match for your natural stupidity.
- Vox Populi ©
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:gujheucfnio0guvqc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 11:25:45 GMT, Diogenes <dioge...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >More idiots. The law is different in different jurisdictions you ignorant red
> >neck trailer trash. Now STOP cross posting to can legal We do not want your crap
> >here.
>
> Ah! So the definition of a "pet" is different in your country?
They consider their wives to be pets in the UK ... ugly pets at that.
- Vox Populi ©
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:891ieus7jdltk41g6...@4ax.com...
You Brits are some dim bulbs.
If the wording, in common English, states "No Pets" then where the hell
do you fabricate the myth that the pet must be "owned", or "kept" by you?
What part of "No Pets" doesn't an imbecile like you comprehend?
If it is a "pet", anyone's pet, as pets are defined, then it is prohibited,
no matter who owns it, who keeps it, or who sucks the shit out of its anus ...
Any questions, idiot?
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins;
all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken, 1923
>
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
because our eyesight is so good we don't need brighter lights.
>
>If the wording, in common English, states "No Pets" then where the hell
>do you fabricate the myth that the pet must be "owned", or "kept" by you?
pet // n., adj., & v.
n.
a domestic or tamed animal kept for pleasure or companionship.
Now if you are the person renting the accommodation and your friend
brings their pet along, you are not breaking the no-pets rule.
>
>What part of "No Pets" doesn't an imbecile like you comprehend?
>
>If it is a "pet", anyone's pet, as pets are defined, then it is prohibited,
Not if it is your rental agreement saying "no pets". You may be banned
from keeping pets yourself (though Merkin law in particular can
overturn that even if you signed and agreement) but you cannot
possibly be banned from having brief visits from a friend or family
member who brings a pet with them.
>no matter who owns it, who keeps it, or who sucks the shit out of its anus ...
Well we can see who partakes of the final from that list - tell me,
just out of curiosity, why do you do it?
>
>Any questions, idiot?
Sure dumbo, does your keeper know you use his/her computer?
--
Bob.
When you came to the fountain of knowledge, you merely gargled.
KarmaKop
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:09:26 -0600, "- Vox Populi Š" <v...@popu.li>
Utter nonsense. Where in the definition of "pets" (or specifically in
the lease agreement/contracts) does it say, or care, *who* is the owner
of the pet(s) that are prohibited from the premises.
No Pets, regardless of who owns them, or
how briefly they trespass upon the property.
Unless the lease states - "No Pets owned by the tenant shall
be allowed", the 2 simple words, "No Pets" would be understood
by all but to most simple minded village idiots such as yourself.
> >
> >What part of "No Pets" doesn't an imbecile like you comprehend?
> >
> >If it is a "pet", anyone's pet, as pets are defined, then it is
prohibited,
>
> Not if it is your rental agreement saying "no pets".
Wrong.
> You may be banned
> from keeping pets yourself
No Pets doesn't say anything about keeping pets, or who is the owner
of the pets, it simply states that No Pets are allowed upon the premises,
at all, no matter how brief the time, you blithering wanker.
> (though Merkin law in particular can
> overturn that even if you signed and agreement) but you cannot
> possibly be banned from having brief visits from a friend or family
> member who brings a pet with them.
Complete bullshit. Are you a professional liar, or just an idiot?
>
> >no matter who owns it, who keeps it, or who sucks the shit out of its
anus ...
>
> Well we can see who partakes of the final from that list - tell me,
> just out of curiosity, why do you do it?
> >
> >Any questions, idiot?
>
> Sure dumbo, does your keeper know you use his/her computer?
Does No Smoking mean that your visitors can smoke, as long as
you don't smoke yourself?
You simpering moron.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
Bob Brenchley.
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:i7dieuke4r9iglau5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:09:26 -0600, "- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >If the wording, in common English, states "No Pets" then where the hell
>> >do you fabricate the myth that the pet must be "owned", or "kept" by you?
>>
>> pet // n., adj., & v.
>> n.
>> a domestic or tamed animal kept for pleasure or companionship.
>>
>> Now if you are the person renting the accommodation and your friend
>> brings their pet along, you are not breaking the no-pets rule.
>
>Utter nonsense. Where in the definition of "pets" (or specifically in
>the lease agreement/contracts) does it say, or care, *who* is the owner
>of the pet(s) that are prohibited from the premises.
If the clause in the tenancy agreement says "no pets" then a
reasonable judge in just about any country would take that to mean the
tenant was precluded from keeping pets.
>
>No Pets, regardless of who owns them, or
>how briefly they trespass upon the property.
such a clause could be written into a tenancy agreement, but a simple
"no pets" would not cover that.
>
>Unless the lease states - "No Pets owned by the tenant shall
>be allowed", the 2 simple words, "No Pets" would be understood
>by all but to most simple minded village idiots such as yourself.
It is what a judge would take the wording to mean. On the basis of
past experience I would hold that an American judge would not support
the manager on this, and I can assure you no British judge would.
In fact a British judge would not even take "no pets" to mean no pets
at all. They would allow, for instance, the keeping of a hamster,
fish, small caged bird etc.
>
>> >
>> >What part of "No Pets" doesn't an imbecile like you comprehend?
>> >
>> >If it is a "pet", anyone's pet, as pets are defined, then it is
>prohibited,
>>
>> Not if it is your rental agreement saying "no pets".
>
>Wrong.
You are, but then it must happen to a troll like you quite often.
>
>> You may be banned
>> from keeping pets yourself
>
>No Pets doesn't say anything about keeping pets,
Yes it does.
>or who is the owner
>of the pets, it simply states that No Pets are allowed upon the premises,
No it doesn't. If that was the intention then that is what should have
been written into the agreement.
>at all, no matter how brief the time, you blithering wanker.
>
>
>> (though Merkin law in particular can
>> overturn that even if you signed and agreement) but you cannot
>> possibly be banned from having brief visits from a friend or family
>> member who brings a pet with them.
>
>Complete bullshit. Are you a professional liar, or just an idiot?
I'm someone who knows contract law better than you - but then most
five year olds would pass that test.
There are sections under the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
1983 which can be used, so can the Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988).
There are a couple of others I could dig up and explain for you if you
like.
The ownership of a pet is something the law bans only when there is a
valid reason - and the tenancy agreement may not be a valid enough
reason.
>
>
>
>>
>> >no matter who owns it, who keeps it, or who sucks the shit out of its
>anus ...
>>
>> Well we can see who partakes of the final from that list - tell me,
>> just out of curiosity, why do you do it?
>> >
>> >Any questions, idiot?
>>
>> Sure dumbo, does your keeper know you use his/her computer?
>
>Does No Smoking mean that your visitors can smoke, as long as
>you don't smoke yourself?
No, that would ban smoking. In just the same way that "no pets" bans
(maybe) the tenant keeping pets.
>
>You simpering moron.
If I was 10 times smarter than you, I'd be a moron!
>
--
Bob.
Profanity: The linguistic crutch of inarticulate trolls.
- Vox Populi ©
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:neqieusjhff8h6otm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 15:49:54 -0600, "KarmaKop" <no...@none.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
> >news:i7dieuke4r9iglau5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:09:26 -0600, "- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >If the wording, in common English, states "No Pets" then where the hell
> >> >do you fabricate the myth that the pet must be "owned", or "kept" by you?
> >>
> >> pet // n., adj., & v.
> >> n.
> >> a domestic or tamed animal kept for pleasure or companionship.
> >>
> >> Now if you are the person renting the accommodation and your friend
> >> brings their pet along, you are not breaking the no-pets rule.
> >
> >Utter nonsense. Where in the definition of "pets" (or specifically in
> >the lease agreement/contracts) does it say, or care, *who* is the owner
> >of the pet(s) that are prohibited from the premises.
>
> If the clause in the tenancy agreement says "no pets" then a
> reasonable judge in just about any country would take that to mean the
> tenant was precluded from keeping pets.
Only in your own foolish delusions.
Here's a typical sample from a lease:
PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
> >
> >No Pets, regardless of who owns them, or
> >how briefly they trespass upon the property.
>
> such a clause could be written into a tenancy agreement, but a simple
> "no pets" would not cover that.
Wrong. The 2 words "No Pets" is about as simple and specific and unambiguous
as can be, exept to an idiot like you. It doesn't say "No Pets except those of visiting
friends or family" It doesn't say - "No Pets except if you don't own or keep them".
You must be a special kind of moron.
> >
> >Unless the lease states - "No Pets owned by the tenant shall
> >be allowed", the 2 simple words, "No Pets" would be understood
> >by all but to most simple minded village idiots such as yourself.
>
> It is what a judge would take the wording to mean.
OK, lets look at the legal analysis of the elements of the
complete phrase - "No Pets"
No = adv. Not at all; not by any degree.
Pets = n. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
No reference to "who" keeps the pet, just what is a pet,
and that none, (not any) are allowed on the premises.
> On the basis of
> past experience I would hold that an American judge would not support
> the manager on this, and I can assure you no British judge would.
You Brits are some queer folk.
> In fact a British judge would not even take "no pets" to mean no pets
> at all. They would allow, for instance, the keeping of a hamster,
> fish, small caged bird etc.
Then your Brit judges profoundly ignorant of the meaning
and use of the English language.
> >
> >> >
> >> >What part of "No Pets" doesn't an imbecile like you comprehend?
> >> >
> >> >If it is a "pet", anyone's pet, as pets are defined, then it is
> >prohibited,
> >>
> >> Not if it is your rental agreement saying "no pets".
> >
> >Wrong.
>
> You are, but then it must happen to a troll like you quite often.
> >
> >> You may be banned
> >> from keeping pets yourself
> >
> >No Pets doesn't say anything about keeping pets,
>
> Yes it does.
You are seriously deluded. It doesn't say "The tenant shall not
keep any pets" the phrase simply states "No Pets" regardless
of who is the owner, or the time of the trespass.
>
> >or who is the owner
> >of the pets, it simply states that No Pets are allowed upon the premises,
>
> No it doesn't. If that was the intention then that is what should have
> been written into the agreement.
"No Pets". Nothing there about who owns them, except in you pathetic
delusions.
>
> >at all, no matter how brief the time, you blithering wanker.
> >
> >
> >> (though Merkin law in particular can
> >> overturn that even if you signed and agreement) but you cannot
> >> possibly be banned from having brief visits from a friend or family
> >> member who brings a pet with them.
> >
> >Complete bullshit. Are you a professional liar, or just an idiot?
>
> I'm someone who knows contract law better than you - but then most
> five year olds would pass that test.
Well, here's a clause directly from a lease contract. Analyze that
Einstein -
PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
Any questions?
>
> There are sections under the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
> 1983 which can be used, so can the Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988).
> There are a couple of others I could dig up and explain for you if you
> like.
You're lying again. Post your mythical citations, liar.
>
> The ownership of a pet is something the law bans only when there is a
> valid reason - and the tenancy agreement may not be a valid enough
> reason.
Bullshit. The contract/lease is the valid reason. If you aren't going to
follow the terms of the lease contract, then don't sign it and rent somewhere
else, you lying loser.
PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
> >>
> >> >no matter who owns it, who keeps it, or who sucks the shit out of its
> >anus ...
> >>
> >> Well we can see who partakes of the final from that list - tell me,
> >> just out of curiosity, why do you do it?
> >> >
> >> >Any questions, idiot?
> >>
> >> Sure dumbo, does your keeper know you use his/her computer?
> >
> >Does No Smoking mean that your visitors can smoke, as long as
> >you don't smoke yourself?
>
> No, that would ban smoking. In just the same way that "no pets" bans
> (maybe) the tenant keeping pets.
You are a blithering idiot, and not even a consistent idiot.
> >
> >You simpering moron.
>
> If I was 10 times smarter than you, I'd be a moron!
PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
> >
> --
> Bob.
>
PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
Any questions?
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>
>
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:neqieusjhff8h6otm...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 May 2002 15:49:54 -0600, "KarmaKop" <no...@none.no> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>> >news:i7dieuke4r9iglau5...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:09:26 -0600, "- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >If the wording, in common English, states "No Pets" then where the hell
>> >> >do you fabricate the myth that the pet must be "owned", or "kept" by you?
>> >>
>> >> pet // n., adj., & v.
>> >> n.
>> >> a domestic or tamed animal kept for pleasure or companionship.
>> >>
>> >> Now if you are the person renting the accommodation and your friend
>> >> brings their pet along, you are not breaking the no-pets rule.
>> >
>> >Utter nonsense. Where in the definition of "pets" (or specifically in
>> >the lease agreement/contracts) does it say, or care, *who* is the owner
>> >of the pet(s) that are prohibited from the premises.
>>
>> If the clause in the tenancy agreement says "no pets" then a
>> reasonable judge in just about any country would take that to mean the
>> tenant was precluded from keeping pets.
>
>Only in your own foolish delusions.
I'm not deluded, but you seem to be.
>
>Here's a typical sample from a lease:
>
>PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
>prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
>deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
That is not a simple "no pets" clause now is it?
>
>> >
>> >No Pets, regardless of who owns them, or
>> >how briefly they trespass upon the property.
>>
>> such a clause could be written into a tenancy agreement, but a simple
>> "no pets" would not cover that.
>
>Wrong. The 2 words "No Pets" is about as simple and specific and unambiguous
>as can be, exept to an idiot like you. It doesn't say "No Pets except those of visiting
>friends or family" It doesn't say - "No Pets except if you don't own or keep them".
If it says "no pets", and is not worded something like the example you
gave above, then no pets means you can't keep pets - though as I say,
in the UK you could keep some but things like dogs, cats, ponies or
blue whales would be out.
>
>You must be a special kind of moron.
Not at all, most morons know more than you.
>
>
>> >
>> >Unless the lease states - "No Pets owned by the tenant shall
>> >be allowed", the 2 simple words, "No Pets" would be understood
>> >by all but to most simple minded village idiots such as yourself.
>>
>> It is what a judge would take the wording to mean.
>
>OK, lets look at the legal analysis of the elements of the
>complete phrase - "No Pets"
>
>No = adv. Not at all; not by any degree.
>Pets = n. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
>
>No reference to "who" keeps the pet, just what is a pet,
>and that none, (not any) are allowed on the premises.
You misread. Nothing in the "no pets" about other people who are not
party to your agreement.
>
>> On the basis of
>> past experience I would hold that an American judge would not support
>> the manager on this, and I can assure you no British judge would.
>
>You Brits are some queer folk.
>
>
>
>> In fact a British judge would not even take "no pets" to mean no pets
>> at all. They would allow, for instance, the keeping of a hamster,
>> fish, small caged bird etc.
>
>Then your Brit judges profoundly ignorant of the meaning
>and use of the English language.
No, just respectful of the wording of agreements.
>
>> >
>> >No Pets doesn't say anything about keeping pets,
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
>You are seriously deluded. It doesn't say "The tenant shall not
>keep any pets" the phrase simply states "No Pets" regardless
>of who is the owner, or the time of the trespass.
Which in the terms of a tenancy agreement, the tenant is not keeping a
pet.
>
>
>>
>> >or who is the owner
>> >of the pets, it simply states that No Pets are allowed upon the premises,
>>
>> No it doesn't. If that was the intention then that is what should have
>> been written into the agreement.
>
>"No Pets". Nothing there about who owns them, except in you pathetic
>delusions.
The agreement is between two people - the landlord and the tenant. The
tenant undertakes not to have any pets. Should that be extended to all
his/her friends? Family?
>
>
>>
>> >at all, no matter how brief the time, you blithering wanker.
>> >
>> >
>> >> (though Merkin law in particular can
>> >> overturn that even if you signed and agreement) but you cannot
>> >> possibly be banned from having brief visits from a friend or family
>> >> member who brings a pet with them.
>> >
>> >Complete bullshit. Are you a professional liar, or just an idiot?
>>
>> I'm someone who knows contract law better than you - but then most
>> five year olds would pass that test.
>
>Well, here's a clause directly from a lease contract. Analyze that
>Einstein -
>
>PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
>prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
>deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
>
>Any questions?
If that was the wording, yes I can still see holes. However, that is
not a simple "no pets" clause. We were talking about the rights of a
person to have a visitor, who happens to have a dog, come calling. If
the clause just said "no pets" the manager was wrong.
>
>
>
>>
>> There are sections under the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
>> 1983 which can be used, so can the Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988).
>> There are a couple of others I could dig up and explain for you if you
>> like.
>
>You're lying again. Post your mythical citations, liar.
Mmmm. I just did. But ok, I'll do it again.
There are sections under the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
1983 which can be used, so can the Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988).
There are a couple of others I could dig up and explain for you if you
like.
>
>>
>> The ownership of a pet is something the law bans only when there is a
>> valid reason - and the tenancy agreement may not be a valid enough
>> reason.
>
>Bullshit. The contract/lease is the valid reason. If you aren't going to
>follow the terms of the lease contract, then don't sign it and rent somewhere
>else, you lying loser.
One thing I NEVER do is lie, and I can't understand why people like
you always feel the need to do so.
>
>PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
>prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
>deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
That is not the subject of this debate.
>
>> >>
>> >> >no matter who owns it, who keeps it, or who sucks the shit out of its
>> >anus ...
>> >>
>> >> Well we can see who partakes of the final from that list - tell me,
>> >> just out of curiosity, why do you do it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Any questions, idiot?
>> >>
>> >> Sure dumbo, does your keeper know you use his/her computer?
>> >
>> >Does No Smoking mean that your visitors can smoke, as long as
>> >you don't smoke yourself?
>>
>> No, that would ban smoking. In just the same way that "no pets" bans
>> (maybe) the tenant keeping pets.
>
>You are a blithering idiot, and not even a consistent idiot.
I can't help it is your two brain cells can't communicate with each
other long enough for you to read what is posted.
>
>
>> >
>> >You simpering moron.
>>
>> If I was 10 times smarter than you, I'd be a moron!
>
>PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
>prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
>deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
>
>> >
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>
>PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
>prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
>deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
>
>Any questions?
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).
- Vox Populi ©
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:u74keu02e2mhg1f3b...@4ax.com...
Only to an imbecile like you. Care to cite some other *exact* pets clause
from a real lease agreement?
> >
> >> >
> >> >No Pets, regardless of who owns them, or
> >> >how briefly they trespass upon the property.
> >>
> >> such a clause could be written into a tenancy agreement, but a simple
> >> "no pets" would not cover that.
> >
> >Wrong. The 2 words "No Pets" is about as simple and specific and unambiguous
> >as can be, exept to an idiot like you. It doesn't say "No Pets except those of visiting
> >friends or family" It doesn't say - "No Pets except if you don't own or keep them".
>
> If it says "no pets", and is not worded something like the example you
> gave above, then no pets means you can't keep pets
Wrong again moron. The words "No Pets" are not
limited to merely "keeping" pets, quite simply that no
pets are allowed on the premises, kept, rented, borrowed,
stolen, visiting, married or whatever their ownership
(or lack thereof) status happens to be.
> - though as I say,
> in the UK you could keep some but things like dogs, cats, ponies or
> blue whales would be out.
> >
> >You must be a special kind of moron.
>
> Not at all, most morons know more than you.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Unless the lease states - "No Pets owned by the tenant shall
> >> >be allowed", the 2 simple words, "No Pets" would be understood
> >> >by all but to most simple minded village idiots such as yourself.
> >>
> >> It is what a judge would take the wording to mean.
> >
> >OK, lets look at the legal analysis of the elements of the
> >complete phrase - "No Pets"
> >
> >No = adv. Not at all; not by any degree.
> >Pets = n. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
> >
> >No reference to "who" keeps the pet, just what is a pet,
> >and that none, (not any) are allowed on the premises.
>
> You misread. Nothing in the "no pets" about other people who are not
> party to your agreement.
The renter is a party, and is responsible for the conduct and decorum
of any invitees/guests he may have on the premises.
> >
> >> On the basis of
> >> past experience I would hold that an American judge would not support
> >> the manager on this, and I can assure you no British judge would.
> >
> >You Brits are some queer folk.
> >
> >
> >
> >> In fact a British judge would not even take "no pets" to mean no pets
> >> at all. They would allow, for instance, the keeping of a hamster,
> >> fish, small caged bird etc.
> >
> >Then your Brit judges profoundly ignorant of the meaning
> >and use of the English language.
>
> No, just respectful of the wording of agreements.
> >
>
> >> >
> >> >No Pets doesn't say anything about keeping pets,
> >>
> >> Yes it does.
> >
> >You are seriously deluded. It doesn't say "The tenant shall not
> >keep any pets" the phrase simply states "No Pets" regardless
> >of who is the owner, or the time of the trespass.
>
> Which in the terms of a tenancy agreement, the tenant is not keeping a
> pet.
You truly are a deluded fool. Nothing in the words "No Pets" limits
it to only pets owned by the renter. No pets quite simply means
no pets allowed, in any shape or form, regardless of ownership or
temporal status.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >or who is the owner
> >> >of the pets, it simply states that No Pets are allowed upon the premises,
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. If that was the intention then that is what should have
> >> been written into the agreement.
> >
> >"No Pets". Nothing there about who owns them, except in you pathetic
> >delusions.
>
> The agreement is between two people - the landlord and the tenant. The
> tenant undertakes not to have any pets. Should that be extended to all
> his/her friends? Family?
If/when they visit the tenant, absolutely. If the lease states simply "No Smoking",
are you seriously stupid enough to suggest that the tenants family/friends/guests
can smoke all they want when they are on the premises, as long as the tenant
doesn't?
You are a blithering idiot.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >at all, no matter how brief the time, you blithering wanker.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> (though Merkin law in particular can
> >> >> overturn that even if you signed and agreement) but you cannot
> >> >> possibly be banned from having brief visits from a friend or family
> >> >> member who brings a pet with them.
> >> >
> >> >Complete bullshit. Are you a professional liar, or just an idiot?
> >>
> >> I'm someone who knows contract law better than you - but then most
> >> five year olds would pass that test.
> >
> >Well, here's a clause directly from a lease contract. Analyze that
> >Einstein -
> >
> >PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
> >prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
> >deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
> >
> >Any questions?
>
> If that was the wording, yes I can still see holes. However, that is
> not a simple "no pets" clause. We were talking about the rights of a
> person to have a visitor,
The lease allows, presumably, human visitors, though some leases
limit the number, times, and length of stay of any such humans.
> who happens to have a dog,
Happenstance or not, No Pets are allowed on the premises,
regardless of who owns them or how temporarily they stay, idiot.
> come calling. If
> the clause just said "no pets" the manager was wrong.
No, it is you, being a profoundly stupid moron who is patently
wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> There are sections under the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
> >> 1983 which can be used, so can the Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988).
> >> There are a couple of others I could dig up and explain for you if you
> >> like.
> >
> >You're lying again. Post your mythical citations, liar.
>
> Mmmm. I just did. But ok, I'll do it again.
>
> There are sections under the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
> 1983 which can be used, so can the Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988).
> There are a couple of others I could dig up and explain for you if you
> like.
Post the verbiage of your supposed sections of that act that apply, you liar.
> >
> >>
> >> The ownership of a pet is something the law bans only when there is a
> >> valid reason - and the tenancy agreement may not be a valid enough
> >> reason.
> >
> >Bullshit. The contract/lease is the valid reason. If you aren't going to
> >follow the terms of the lease contract, then don't sign it and rent somewhere
> >else, you lying loser.
>
> One thing I NEVER do is lie, and I can't understand why people like
> you always feel the need to do so.
You are a lying sack of shit, and grotesquely stupid to boot.
> >
> >PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on property without
> >prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall in no way be
> >deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are allowed.
>
> That is not the subject of this debate.
Liar.
> Bob the blithering idiot.
John
No matter HOW the leasor words the lease, how a "no pets" policy is
enforced and interpreted is dependent on the local laws; generally
speaking, it depends on how renter friendly the local laws are.
In NYC for instance, a leasor can have as strict a no-pets policy, but
by law, the landlord only has three-months to enforce their policy.
This means that if I bring in a dog and for three months I
conspicuously (no hiding the dog in a coat or box) take it out for a
walk every day without ANY REQUEST by the landlord or manager to
remove the animal, then the landlord can no longer do anything about
it. In fact, if any of the workers even saw the dog ONCE, and the dog
has been in your possession for three months, you're still in the
clear.
As for the original question, a "no pets" policy is not necessarily
applicable to someone merely bringing in a dog (or any other pet) for
a visit. It depends on whether the lease forbids someone from simply
OWNING a dog, or whether the lease precludes an animal from even
visiting. You need to check the lease to see how it was worded,
though if the pet is pretty unruly, then you might as well forget it.
K
"Stephanie" <sjwi...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02052...@babel.ling.upenn.edu...
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, KarmaKop wrote:
> >
> > Really? What planet of fools are you from?
> >
> > I suppose No Smoking means you can have visitors who
> > smoke, and No Guns means you just can't keep guns
> > permanently, but can have them there temporarily?
>
>
> delivering a newspaper to your door. Jeez, what a moron...
>
> S.
Yeah, and "No Smoking" means you can't burn your dinner or light a candle
and "No Guns" means you can't play Virtua Cop on your playstation!
"No Pets" would logically refer to the keeping of certain animals (cats,
dogs, elephants) as pets in a permanent fashion. A goldfish could be classed
as a pet but no landlord/manager would prevent you having a goldfish.
K
"- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:HZaG8.539$Yy1....@news.uswest.net...
I have one. When does an animal become a pet? What if I have wild birds
feeding from my balcony? What if I allow stray animals to shelter in my
apartment? I don't consider them my pets (ie: I have no form of ownership of
them or responsibility for them!).
Marcus L. Rowland
<k...@420.com> writes
>
>"No Pets" would logically refer to the keeping of certain animals (cats,
>dogs, elephants) as pets in a permanent fashion. A goldfish could be
>classed as a pet but no landlord/manager would prevent you having a
>goldfish.
>
Don't count on it. The school where I work (in London, UK) was recently
given a large aquarium by a local resident who had just been told that
it was against the terms of his lease to have it. I think that the
landlord was mainly worried about the damage that would be caused if it
broke, but if that can be banned a goldfish bowl can be banned.
Unfortunately we didn't get the fish, just the tank, so at the moment it
just houses a couple of goldfish, which is slightly overkill for a 3 ft.
tank with three types of filtration...
Greg
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:gujheucfnio0guvqc...@4ax.com...
Greg
why does the clause:
PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on
property without
prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others shall
in no way be
deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are
allowed.
specifically state that visiting pets
are also forbidden?
"- Vox Populi Š" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:gMgG8.1558$nQ6.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
>
>
> "Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
> news:neqieusjhff8h6otm...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 20 May 2002 15:49:54 -0600, "KarmaKop" <no...@none.no> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
> > >news:i7dieuke4r9iglau5...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:09:26 -0600, "- Vox Populi Š" <v...@popu.li>
Jeff Bishop
"Greg" <gor...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3cfb4534$0$31825$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> If as you say, the simple words "No Pets" is of itself sufficient and
ample,
> why does the clause:
> PETS: 17. No animals, birds, or pets of any kind shall be permitted on
> property without
> prior written consent of Lessor. The granting of consent to others
shall
> in no way be
> deemed the granting of consent to anyone else. No "visiting pets" are
> allowed.
> go to the trouble of specifically defining what sort of animal a pet is,
and
> specifically state that visiting pets
> are also forbidden?
Many contracts, statutes, etc. contain all sorts of redundancies. Sometimes
it just means the drafter was being sloppy. Other times, it's there just in
case someone tries to split hairs.
Greg
throat.
A good example was Bill Clinton asking what the questioner meant by "having
sex".
After getting him to define what he meant, Bill could honestly answer that
he had not
in fact had sex.
"Jeff Bishop" <je...@bishop.name> wrote in message
news:wiXK8.19338$861.6...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...
Sherry
>dogs, elephants) as pets in a permanent fashion. A goldfish could be classed
>as a pet but no landlord/manager would prevent you having a goldfish.
>
>
get it. I have rental property and have *never* had any damage from pets. Pets
don't color on the woodwork with magic markers; pets don't flush toys down the
toilet; well, you get the idea. (AFAIK, though, you can't ask for a "kid
deposit." I really sympathize with people who are looking for a decent place to
live around here and keep indoor pets. They are hard to find.
Sherry
Erin Smith
news:20020607095736...@mb-mh.aol.com...
> All this talk about "no pets" just makes me shake my head. Landlords just
don't
> get it. I have rental property and have *never* had any damage from pets.
Pets
> don't color on the woodwork with magic markers; pets don't flush toys
down the
> toilet; well, you get the idea. (AFAIK, though, you can't ask for a "kid
> deposit." I really sympathize with people who are looking for a decent
place to
> live around here and keep indoor pets. They are hard to find.
>
> Sherry
>
And when you do manage to find one, like as not some idiots are running
around with dogs off thier leashes, letting them mess everywhere and not
cleaning it up, letting thier cats outside, etc etc etc.
--
Erin Smith (lady...@attbi.com)
Kulani Autumnwood, officer, Clan Autumnwood