18:22 Dec 5, 2004 |
English to German translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / lease contract | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Gisela Greenlee Local time: 04:10 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | s.u. |
| ||
4 | Poor wording |
| ||
3 | deren Behebung (dem Mieter) obliegt |
|
Discussion entries: 4 | |
---|---|
Poor wording Explanation: Hallo Johanna, ich denke, daß das ganze etwas schlecht geschrieben wurde und daß man folgendes damit ausdrücken wollte: " The tenant is responsible for maintaining premises in good repair except for reasonable wear and tear; acts of God and fire" - , so except for reasonable wear and tear, acts of god and fire, the tenant is responsible for normal repairs to the premises. "roof repairs after the fifth year of the lease provided such repairs do not result from faulty construction; and structural repairs after 5 years of the lease, provided that they don’t result from faulty construction or structural defects" - so after 5 years of leasing this property, the tenant is responsible for repairs to the roof and the structure, provided they are not the result of faulty construction or structural defects. ***which repairs shall be the responsibility of the tenant***. What they are trying to say here is that if the repairs are not due to structural defects or faulty construction, then they are the responsiblility of the tenant, but they already stated that at the beginning of the sentence, so I think it is redundant and misleading, especially since the next sentence states that the "aforementioned exceptions" are the responsibilities of the landlord, meaning the "acts of God, fire, structural defects and faulty construction. That is how I would understand everything. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2004-12-05 19:00:16 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Johanna, here is another possibility - is this by chance a lease-back deal, where the tenant initially builds the mall, which is then purchased by the landlord and leased back to the tenant? If that is the case, it would explain the strange wording that implies the tenant\'s responsiblity for structural defects, since they were the builder of the property to begin with. Otherwise, I\'m still convinced that the whole thing is due to poor wording, but your contract may provide some further clues to this being a lease-back deal. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2004-12-05 20:08:01 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- An Hans: Ja, aber in diesem Vertrag liest es sich so, als wäre der Mieter für diese Mängel verantwortlich, was nur sein kann, wenn dieser Mieter und nicht der jetzige Eigentümer der ursprüngliche Bauherr war. Dieser Satz gibt ja erst an, daß der Mieter nach fünf Jahren für Dachreparaturen verantwortlich ist, und fährt dann fort \"außer sie sind auf Konstruktionsfehler blah, blah, blah, und dann \" für welche der Mieter verantwortlich ist\". Also, wieso ist der Mieter ursprünglich erst nach fünf Jahren für diese Reparaturen verantwortlich, aber wenn sie auf Konstruktionsfehler zurückzuführen sind, dann ist der Mieter von Anfang an zuständig? Das macht für mich nur Sinn, wenn der Mieter, wie schon oben erwähnt, ursprünglich fár die Konstruktion verantwortlich war und deswegen für die Behebung dieser Fehler zu zahlen hat. That\'s my story, and I\'m sticking to it! |
| |||||||||||||||||||
Grading comment
| ||||||||||||||||||||
11 mins confidence:
1 hr confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
|