VeggieBoards banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, here's a hypothetical....<br><br>
A veg*n has a lease on an apartment and has three extra bedrooms. In order to save money, (s)he decides to rent out the three bedrooms and puts an ad on Craigslist.<br><br>
(S)he decides on three omnivores as roommates because they were the best candidates in a financial respect and (s)he believe that (s)he can stand to live with omnivores for at least a year. Plus, they've all agreed to pay equal rent and let the veg*n remain the lease-holder. And, while it will bother him/her that they are cooking meat in the kitchen they share, (s)he doesn't think it'll be such a problem that (s)he cannot stand to live there anymore.<br><br>
But (s)he was wrong. (S)he learns that the smell and idea of having meat cooked in the same area, let alone same cookware, is repulsive.<br><br>
Half way through, (s)he decides that the other three need to either become veg*ns or move out so (s)he serves them their ultimatum with an eviction notice.<br><br>
Is the veg*n off his/her rocker?<br>
Should the omnis just suck it up and become veg*n if they want to stay in the apartment leased under the veg*n's name?
 

·
Impeach the gangster
Joined
·
10,052 Posts
Hypothetical, eh...?<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/tongue3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":p"><br><br>
What was the nature of the agreement between them? Was it written? Verbal? Was it for a specified duration (1-year?) or a more casual "ongoing" arrangement?<br><br>
Since the lease-holder allowed full use of the kitchen for half the term, I would say he/she is bound to let it continue, until the term is up.<br><br>
If this was a casual arrangement, I think 3-months notice would be more than fair. 10-days is unreasonable.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
It's cut and dry to me. The vegetarian created a contract (I'm not sure if it was oral or written) and did not specify that meat could not be cooked in her kitchen. She cannot change the terms of the contract on a whim. It is a done deal. The meat eaters should be allowed to stay the length of the term that was agreed upon and be able to cook meat in the kitchen (however, she can specify that no one can use her cookware). If no length of term was agreed upon, then it should be assumed they are renting on a month-to-month basis. In that case, I think a two week notice would be fair (if less than 2 weeks until the end of the month, then it should be extended until the end of the next month).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
A coincidental hypothetical...<br><br>
However, I think it entirely depends on what kind of contract they made at the beginning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>sleepydvdr</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2995750"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
It's cut and dry to me. The vegetarian created a contract (I'm not sure if it was oral or written) and did not specify that meat could not be cooked in her kitchen. She cannot change the terms of the contract on a whim. It is a done deal.</div>
</div>
<br>
This +1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>nogardsram</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2995752"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
A coincidental hypothetical...<br><br>
However, I think it entirely depends on what kind of contract they made at the beginning.</div>
</div>
<br>
I believe verbal contracts valued at $500 or more are legally enforceable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Beancounter</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2995763"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I believe verbal contracts valued at $500 or more are legally enforceable.</div>
</div>
<br>
Okay, it still remains that we don't know what the contract entailed (which is what I meant by 'what kind of contract they made').<br><br>
Further, are we talking about an oral contract or a written contract. If it was just oral, are there any witnesses (other than those involved). Legally, I would think that for oral contracts to be enforceable there would have to be some kind of witness other than the parties involved.<br><br>
If we're talking about the quality of the character, well again, that depends on what the contract entailed. Was it just a 'yeah, you can move in and we'll all pay equal rent' or was it more detailed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>nogardsram</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2995774"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Okay, it still remains that we don't know what the contract entailed (which is what I meant by 'what kind of contract they made').<br><br>
Further, are we talking about an oral contract or a written contract. If it was just oral, are there any witnesses (other than those involved). Legally, I would think that for oral contracts to be enforceable there would have to be some kind of witness other than the parties involved.<br><br>
If we're talking about the quality of the character, well again, that depends on what the contract entailed. Was it just a 'yeah, you can move in and we'll all pay equal rent' or was it more detailed.</div>
</div>
<br><br>
From the OP's scenario it doesn't appear that there were any specific agreements about what can/can't be cooked in the kitchen. The vegan "though s/he could live with it" which implies that s/he didn't think it needed to be discussed.<br><br>
But I agree, without a third witness, it's just a he said/ she said situation. But then again, it's the word of three against one, even if the vegan talked with each separately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Beancounter</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2995781"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
From the OP's scenario it doesn't appear that there were any specific agreements about what can/can't be cooked in the kitchen. The vegan "though s/he could live with it" which implies that s/he didn't think it needed to be discussed.<br><br>
But I agree, without a third witness, it's just a he said/ she said situation. But then again, it's the word of three against one, even if the vegan talked with each separately.</div>
</div>
<br>
Sure, and we also received a biased point of view. It difficult to say what exactly was discussed, how, or with whom. There's just not enough information in my opinion to who is right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,914 Posts
The veg*an didn't say that they couldn't kick meat. I think S/he will have to suck it up, especially if they're all paying rent. I'm assuming the omni's signed a contract of some sort for staying there, right? Legally I don't think that's a good reason to kick them out. However, as Sleepydvdr said, she could request that they not use his or her cookware.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Hmm...<br><br>
If all parties agreed to amend the agreement after it has been instituted, it would be ok. But it is wrong (unethical, unlawful, etc.) to demand that a legal tenant vacate if they refuse to change according to the lease-holders whim. What would be next? No makeup in the house? No country music between 3 pm and 7 pm?<br><br>
And if they aren't a legal tenant, there's trouble anyway.<br><br>
I don't know I think it would be asking to get taken to court.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top