Sentences with phrase «leasing does»

Whether you own your car or were leasing it does not affect the situation if your accident was the fault of another driver's negligence.

While financing a vehicle has its own appeal, leasing does, too.

It says it should be entitled to get its $ 1 million deposit back with interest in the event the transfer of the lease doesn't go ahead.

[P] lease don't mess this up.»

And because most leases do not exceed 36 months, you won't have to worry about having to shell out big bucks in the event that there is some major mechanical failure.

i think car manufacturers are cutting many corners to turn in more profit!i will contact nissan to try and solve this matter being i am leasing i do not want to incur any more damage and be held responsible when my 3 years are up.please get the nose mask

A written lease doesn't have to be a formal document.

Just because it's not your problem to maintain per the lease doesn't mean you wouldn't be named in the lawsuit if the postman fell on your steps!

Some leases don't require a down payment but require the first month's payment and a security deposit

It's always a good idea to have Salem, OR Renters Insurance, even if your lease doesn't mandate it.

Rental agreements and leases don't reign supreme in the renting realm.

One drawback of the rent - to - own selling option is that you might want to sell your house or condo sooner, and if your contract or lease doesn't allow for you to do so, you could be locked into the terms you agree to with your tenant / buyer.

They just introduced a $ 0 - down lease that will cover your monthly payments until February 2016, to ensure your car lease doesn't compete with your holiday shopping budget.

If your lease does not SPECIFICALLY prohibit such dogs, (even if it excludes ordinary dogs) then your landlord would be in violation of Oklahoma Law if he attempts to evict you for that specific reason.

His owner moved in with relatives whose lease did not allow pets.

If you rent or lease do you have written permission from your landlord to foster dogs?

We think of the families whose leases don't allow pets or they're working so many hours it's not practical for them to have pets.

After a week of review I got an email saying that they have limited my spending limit for both cards, which is fine with me, at lease they didn't cancel the accounts and I get to keep all those points!!!

Although the site is the last major development area left close to the city centre, the state government's rail service currently owns the land and its lease doesn't expire until 2014.

If your lease does not specifically state whether you can sublease or not, you can ask for a Consent to Sublease from your landlord or property manager.

Even if your lease does not specifically say that you can not sublease, you should still ask and get approval from your property manager first.

We're both co-signed on the lease and the lease doesn't expire until next year.

A conversion to a month to month lease does basically the same thing.

Legally speaking, not having a lease does not change tenants rights and responsibilities.

A lease doesn't transfer the cooker to you: it gives you exclusive possession of a dwelling containing the cooker.

No where in the lease does it say this and I see no reason why he wouldn't simply return the damage deposit.

Month - to - month leases do provide some benefits over fixed term leases, but what's best for you depends on your situation and needs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the tenant's appeal on the apparently broad grounds that a lease could only be excluded from LTA 1954 if it was for a term of years certain and the words of extension in cl 1 of the lease in question, including any period of holding over or extension in the definition of «the term», meant that the lease did not create a term of years certain.

If it so happens that the wording of a given lease does not expressly forbid parting or sharing with possession the tenant would appear to be in luck, but the wording of alienation covenants are so widely pro-forma that such opportunities are likely to be few and far between.

The lease may contain, or tenancy law may require a lease to contain (which is the same thing, even if the actual lease doesn't have it) a clause regarding uninhabitability.

The lease did provide that the basic rent was to be paid yearly «and proportionately for any part of a year» by quarterly instalments in advance.

The terms of the lease did not cover the monthly expenses associated with the unit and it was also note that comparable rents in the same complex were $ 900 — $ 1,000 in 2013.

These contracts include everything a regular lease does plus the amount of the option fee, termination details, what happens to extra rent paid, and whether the house will have a set price or be sold at market value.

The fact that one tenant has signed a written lease does not mean that other persons occupying the residential premises are not also tenants.

Actually having a random person move in from Craigslist might also cause your roommate to suffer additional liability if they're not allowed to sublet their lease agreement, which many leases do not allow (landlords like knowing who's living on their properties).

It's probably in the lease that a renter can't make significant changes to the property's appearance without permission from the property owner or management; i.e. many leases don't allow you to repaint rooms, put in new carpet, etc. without permission from the landlord.

If the landlord doesn't want to re-negotiate, you're probably facing eviction if you can't come up with the full rent by yourself; many leases don't allow non-related adults to live on the premises if they're not on the lease (this can also result in eviction).

As to why the lease did not make express provision for repayment, the judge remarked that what was obvious at the present time, in the light of Quirkco and another recent case, PCE Investors Ltd v Cancer Research UK [2012] EWHC 884 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 111 (Apr)-- namely, that if the tenant pays a full quarter's rent on the last quarter day before the break date and the lease then terminates on the break date in the middle of a quarter, then a question will arise as to whether the landlord is entitled to retain the full quarter's rent — had been less obvious when the lease was entered into.

My lease doesn't end for over a month but my landlord is pressuring me into making a decision regarding renewal already.

TCEA 2007 permits CRAR to be used after a lease has ended in relation to sums which fell due before the expiry of the lease, but only in limited circumstances, namely: - where control of the goods in question was taken before the expiry of the lease; or - all the following are satisfied: - the lease did not end by forfeiture; - not more than six months have passed since the lease came to an end; - the rent is due from the person who was the tenant at the end of the lease; - that person remains in possession of the premises; and - any new lease under which they remain in possession is a lease of commercial premises and the landlord remains the same.

This is, of course, assuming that your lease does not provide that you are entitled to free parking.

In other words, if the lease does not speak to a late fee, the landlord may not charge one in any form.

Just because it's not your problem to maintain per the lease doesn't mean you wouldn't be named in the lawsuit if the postman fell on your steps!

Leases don't have those same restrictions.

This additional amount is often required because the company that provided the lease doesn't want to be stuck with a bill if you total the vehicle while leasing it.

A written lease doesn't have to be a formal document.

Just because your tenant showed you proof of rental insurance when signing the lease doesn't mean he didn't let the policy lapse.

However, many leases don't have this requirement and renters fail to purchase insurance.

Before you do, however, make sure that your lease does not require you to have liability insurance.

First, a minority of courts have held that the insurer has an absolute right to sue the tenant for those damages, so long as the lease does not contain a provision stating otherwise.