In New Hampshire landlord-tenant law, is the warranty of habitability applicable to commercial premises?
113712
""Dwelling" shall mean any building, structure, trailer, mobil-home or camp or part thereof, used and occupied for human habitation or intended to be so used and includes any appurtenances belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith."\n\nThere's nothing that connects the statute and "commercial" under case law either, so I would say no.  But talk to a local lawyer to find out for sure, especially if you're having problems.  Remember that there are other common law remedies as well.
937160
At all the properties that I have ever worked at the tenant paid water... So the answer to your question is they can be... depends on what the lease says
442311
I believe it depends on what is written in your contract.  I recommend asking a professional (i.e. attorney).
595346
Is this for a residential lease or a commercial lease?  What explanation do they give for it?  If this is residential they'd have to give a lot more info than just calling it an "exit fee" in order to make it legal.  It sounds like it's a new way for the landlord to increase your rent.\n\nI suggest that you not sign this lease until they give you enough info to satisfy you.  If you sign it and find out later that it is legal you will be stuck paying it.\n\nBetter yet, cross out the clause and initial it and date it where you crossed it out.  Make a copy of it before you give it back to the landlord.
1101093
Well, if you're buying it then you should be the one responsible for the upkeep. If you were renting it would be his place to fix it, but it's your problem now. Good luck.
442447
If you find a replacement to rent the place, there shouldn't be a problem regardless of the laws/contract/etc. Otherwise, check the books.
971527
Hope this helps\n\n1. Preliminary\n\n(1) The rules enacted by the two next following sections shall have effect, in place of the rules of the common law, to regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them.\n\n(2) The rules so enacted shall regulate the nature of the duty imposed by law in consequence of a person's occupation or control of premises and of any invitation or permission he gives (or is to be treated as giving) to another to enter or use the premises, but they shall not alter the rules of the common law as to the persons on whom a duty is so imposed or to whom it is owed; and accordingly for the purpose of the rules so enacted the persons who are to be treated as an occupier and as his visitors are the same (subject to subsection (4) of this section) as the persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier and as his invitees or licensees.\n\n(3) The rules so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply, in like manner and to the like extent as the principles applicable at common law to an occupier of premises and his invitees or licensees would apply, to regulate-\n(a) the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft; and\n(b) the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any premises or structure in respect of damage to property, including the property of persons who are not themselves his visitors.\n\n(4) A person entering any premises in exercise of rights conferred by virtue of an access agreement or order under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, is not, for the purposes of this Act, a visitor of the occupier of those premises.\n\n2. Extent of occupier's ordinary duty\n\n(1) An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the "common duty of care", to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.\n\n(2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.\n\n(3) The circumstances relevant for the present purposes include the degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor, so that (for example) in proper cases-\n(a) an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; and\n(b) an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.\n\n(4) In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example)-\n(a) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe; and\n(b) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.\n\n(5) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in
257810
I presume this is your property and you have hired the property manager to manage it for you.  You should look at the management agreement.  Most have an arbitration clause to prevent expensive lawsuits.  They probably also have a clause that exempts them except for gross negligence on their part.  (Which this might be.)  I suspect you have much stronger rights if you are a tenant of the building than an owner.
642141
You could try here http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/resrental/index.php?pid=google-resrental_us-rentapp_b&a=t\n\nThis is not an endorsement of the site. I merely googled it.\nAnother is http://www.LandlordProtectionAgency.com\n\nOr you could google it on your own and try the different links. Hope this helps.
1073154
There are so many possible "pitfalls" that I can't begin to describe them here.  Most commercial leases I've seen are 30-40 pages of single-spaced typing on legal size paper.  That means an awful lot of possible pitfalls.\n\nI recommend that you have the lease reviewed by an attorney before you sign.  The attorney will explain each of the provisions to you and may be able to negotiate some of those possible pitfalls with the landlord.
451211
I know you can in North Carolina -- here's the ruling from the State Bar in N.C.:\n\nAn attorney who is also a real estate broker may so indicate on his letterhead. He may operate both businesses from same office. \n\nBut you should just contact the S.C. State Bar -- they'll tell you, and probably can do so anonymously, if thats what you want.
791853
Insurance is a bet, just like the races: You can't place a bet after the race has finished. No insurance company is going to want to get involved and neither should you if you are the tenant. If you are I'd suggest you move out quick and stick to your story: You told him three months ago, and he said he'd fix it. You never signed a tenancy agreement, so don't sign one now without taking it to a lawyer.
1034541
check with your local state who determines tenant rights. there are federall guidelines that most states follow. Good Luck
951485
Depends on the contract you signed. I'd suggest you read it again. My feeling is that the landlord is responsible for it. But I don't know for sure.
322148
there is no legal justification. although there is a special law that mandates notice 3 months prior to termination of the lease contract, it can be observed that this mandate is for the benefit of the lessee. if the contract of lease which both of u engaged in reduced the span of notice to 30 days, then it can be considered as a valid waiver of the lessee's right of 3 months. he cannot invoke such law in the courts of law as it would tantamount to estoppel. \nthe proper remedy would be an action for unlawful detainer or if it is no longer available, an action publiciana.\n\ni advise that you consult a lawyer in this matter.
86179
I am not a lawyer and you did not make it totally clear, but it seems like your obligation is only to the Franchisor and not the owner of the property. Of course that assumes that you were never a party to the original lease.\n\nIf the Franchisor has released you from your contract, then you would be clear.
637829
HELL NO!\n EVEN WHEN YOUR RENTING THEY HAVE TO GIVE AT LEAST 24 HRS NOTICE TO ENTER THE PREMISES UNLESS ITS AN EMERGENCY LIKE SOMETHING CAUSING WATER DAMAGE OR A POTETIAL IMMEDIATE FIRE HAZARD POT ON STOVE FOOD IN OVEN, OR A POLICE WARRANT.