3 ms·
Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver. I would gu
by PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver.
I would guess that the real issue is that it would be difficult to prove that the leasing company was aware of the issues, or even that the environmental issues are the cause of this person’s problems.
The topic of what has come to be known as “sick building syndrome” is a thorny legal issue because many times it’s not easy to prove that the building is causing the person’s problem. Most commonly, the issue is that the building is only triggering issues for a single person, while others in the same building are fine. It’s also difficult to separate out the psychosomatic complaints from people who believe their issues are from the building when they might actually be from something else. Doubting these patients publicly is very taboo, but medically it’s actually not uncommon for this to happen.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ohazi 6y ago> Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver. I think it's specifically problematic that these terms are being put into all sorts of legal documents (lease agreements, employment agreements, etc.) as standard boilerplate. What you stated is correct, but it almost doesn't matter when the terms end up achieving the goals of the more powerful party, which is to discourage litigation, even in cases where it might be warranted. You shouldn't be allowed to pretend, in a legal document, that your counterparty isn't allowed to sue you for wrongdoing. That's basically fraud.
- danuker 6y agoAbsolutely. To me that is a red flag.
- juskrey 6y agoExactly, no contract can override legislation which is applicable to contract jurisdiction. Environmental pollution and human poisoning are hardly allowed on consent basis.
- ericbarrett 6y agoYou are still on the back foot as a plaintiff facing this kind of clause, because before the lawsuit begins the defendent will move to force litigation, and you'll have to fight this battle (at $300/hour) before the lawsuit itself even gets started.
- juskrey 6y agoYeah, so basically that sly clause in contract makes no difference, the problem is you have to go that path yourself, wasting your time, or pay the lawyer, wasting money upfront. Pretty much how it works in any part of the world, unless you're jumping into train started by someone else
- rtkwe 6y agoThey can still pose a distinct barrier to the tenet starting a lawsuit right?