Who has had any TTKK dealings which relate to this section?
More particularly, what if there's a TA (incl any variation or renewal) that has not been signed by everyone involved?
If that's the situation, is such a TA or variation or renewal unenforceable on the grounds that it is not signed?
Keep in mind that the Property Law Act [PLA] (I think) has a section that goes something like: acceptance can be inferred from the behavior of the parties.
Let's take an hypothesis, to illustrate.
A rent rate increase is the crux of a variation of a TA. The Deed of Variation is given to the tenant and the tenant changes the weekly rent payt to the new rent rate. But - as sometimes happens - the tenant does not return the signed Deed of Variation and the PM gets busy and forgets to follow up on that.
Things trundle along OK for some months, with the tenant paying the new rent amount. Then, there's a "falling out," and the tenant lodges a TTKK claim for breach of section 23 - Rent in Advance. That would be on the basis that the rent rate increase Deed / document was not signed by the tenant, so the old rent rate actually still applies - and - that being so, the 'new' rate is effectively the landlady requiring payment of rent more than 2 weeks in advance.
Originally posted by RTA
If that's the situation, is such a TA or variation or renewal unenforceable on the grounds that it is not signed?
Keep in mind that the Property Law Act [PLA] (I think) has a section that goes something like: acceptance can be inferred from the behavior of the parties.
Let's take an hypothesis, to illustrate.
A rent rate increase is the crux of a variation of a TA. The Deed of Variation is given to the tenant and the tenant changes the weekly rent payt to the new rent rate. But - as sometimes happens - the tenant does not return the signed Deed of Variation and the PM gets busy and forgets to follow up on that.
Things trundle along OK for some months, with the tenant paying the new rent amount. Then, there's a "falling out," and the tenant lodges a TTKK claim for breach of section 23 - Rent in Advance. That would be on the basis that the rent rate increase Deed / document was not signed by the tenant, so the old rent rate actually still applies - and - that being so, the 'new' rate is effectively the landlady requiring payment of rent more than 2 weeks in advance.
Comment