Academic (Asinine) Hypothesis

[Perry]

It's Easter and the usual fatuous harassment of some
retailers by government functionaries gets some undue
but vacuous attention from vapid media . . .

40 Tenant's responsibilities
(1) The tenant shall -
(a) pay the rent as and when it is due and payable
under the tenancy agreement

So if the rent is payable (overnight) on Friday,
but not received until Wednesday, after over-
night processing on the Tuesday after Easter,
(i.e. four days late) doesn't that mean that
all tenants' Friday-night-non-payments put
them in breach of their responsibilities under
the RTA?

Can we send some government functionary
around to visit all such wayward tenants?

[whitt]

He he

I thought it was quite hypocritical of the labour dept on Easter Friday.
They caught many businesses open when they should have been closed and been on holiday.

However to catch these retailers the labour dept would have been required to work themselves.

So on one hand they are encouraging business to observe public holidays. But don't make there own staff do same.

[Perry]

Bejabbers - you aren't asking for consistency from
a government department, are you? Where do you
get such weird ideas from, silly?

[Austrokiwi]

Bejabbers - you aren't asking for consistency from
a government department, are you? Where do you
get such weird ideas from, silly?

I live in a strongly catholic country...........so strong that if you are not careful here you can get hit by Church tax ( hangover from the Holy Roman Empire)................and Good Friday trading isn't a problem here.............its a normal work day!!!!!

[SuperDad]

So if the rent is payable (overnight) on Friday,
but not received until Wednesday, after over-
night processing on the Tuesday after Easter,
(i.e. four days late) doesn't that mean that
all tenants' Friday-night-non-payments put
them in breach of their responsibilities under
the RTA?

No, it does not mean this (I believe).

Section 40 1(a) requires the tenant to

pay the rent as and when it is due and payable
under the tenancy agreement

Section 11 (1) states that

Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless—

• (a) The inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or

• (b) The Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted.

In Section 2, "working days" expressly excludes

A day in the period commencing with Good Friday and expiring with the Tuesday after Easter

I takes the combination of these sections to entail that one cannot require a tenant to make a payment on a non-working day, which includes the days in Perry's scenario.

Paul.

[Perry]

I really must find something better to do

Generally, I agree that it would not be a common-sense
approach to this distracting question. But we are not
talking about entities which have any renown for that
wonderful attribute.

Taking into account the section heading, viz.

s11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions

and a wider reading of s11 and its overall
context, it seems to be one of allowing a PI
to take on extra responsibilities, over and
above the RTA minimum requirements, but
precludes a tenant from so doing (in it's
usual even-handed way)

The working days edict I take to apply to the
service of documents, rather than payment of rent.
After all, the relevant section

pay the rent as and when it is due and payable
under the tenancy agreement

doesn't make any reference to working days or
exclusions, or the like.

But then we are dealing with a one-sided piece
of legislation here. We're also being distracted
from PI realities by me posing weird scenarios,
which, with luck, will never be tested in a TT.

I really must find something better to do . . .

[Green Fish]

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p.../DLM31881.html

[Monkeyboy]

You can go to your Hairdressers for a haircut and an RE agent can sell you a house but you are not allowed to buy a pot plant. Go figure. Any service is allowed to operate but you can't sell something. So you can't buy the hair gel from the hairdresser after she has cut your hair.

[Glen]

You can go to your Hairdressers for a haircut and an RE agent can sell you a house but you are not allowed to buy a pot plant. Go figure. Any service is allowed to operate but you can't sell something. So you can't buy the hair gel from the hairdresser after she has cut your hair.

You wouldn't be the greatest consumer of hair-gel though would you Mike?