:rolleyes: No shit! If you know or suspect you are buying stolen goods, you’re “in on the deal”. That’s why there is a legal term of “in good faith”. That term is actually really important.
For a real life example… Last year, a guy came home after being out of the country for a bit. Walked in the door and here was a new famly in his house. “Who the fuck are you?”… It turns out, his ex-wife had fraudulently sold his house to innocent buyers . They bought it in good faith. That means they were totally on the up-and-up and didn’t do anything wrong. At all points during the deal they were operating under the warrant that she had title and authority to actually sell the house.
Did the police go arresting the buyers? Of course not, they were essentially victims of the fraud too. The ex-wife represented herself as having authority she did not have.
This is something I used to deal with in contracts at work all the time. Our contracts always had the “you warrant that you have the authority blahblahblah…”
That’s what my hypothetical example was about. If bouv warranted that he had the authority to sell the bike, it would very seriously mitigate my responsibility for buying a “stolen bike”. He represented himself as having the authority to sell it and I, believed him and acting in good faith bought the bike.
All I’m saying is that the fact taht bouv was prohibited by his lease from subletting, is not likely going to absolve him from the responsibility of having done so.
The percentage of good advice was astounding and ignored over and over again.
I think it is funny that he probably does not actually need a lawyer but it is probably the best course for him as it appears he can not read the law, contact the courts and get the proper paperwork himself.
It may appear that way but it also protects tenants from being thrown out on the street by idiots like you.
It has yet to be established whether or not the deadbeat is a tenant or simply a roomer, so it is premature to recommend a course of action. His lawyer can sort that out with him.
Suppose the first party doesn’t say that. Suppose the other party really is a trespasser, or a burglar. How would anyone ever be arrested for these crimes, if the police cannot rely on the word of the homeowner, or legal tenant? Just wondering.
But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about a homeowner, and we’re not talking about a burglary or a clear trespass. So it’s not reasonable to construe what I said as meaning “the police cannot rely on the word of the homeowner or legal tenant” under those circumstances. I wasn’t talking about those sorts of situations; no one was.
OK. Forget the homeowner. Say it is a legal tenant. The quote you responded to mentioned a random stranger wandering into a residence. Isn’t that a clear trespass?
I really am just wondering, not trying to be argumentative. But it seems to me that if I wake up to find a stranger in my house, the police would treat it as a crime.
Of course it is. I never said anything about a “random stranger” (those were Ponder Stibbon’s words) except to point out that that is NOT what we are talking about: “The officer does know that, far from being a ‘random stranger’ who ‘wandered into any house,’ the person has at least been staying there (with permission) for some time.” So at no time was I talking about a random stranger being in the house. Would the police react differently to the presence of a random stranger? Of course they would.
I’m not sure where the confusion arises, and if I was unclear I apologize, but your question is based on something I never said.
If the intruder said he lived there, the police would ask him for some proof; ID, mail at that address, or something else that would confirm his claim. They would also ask you if he lived there. You could deny it it, but if in fact he was a tenant, it would go poorly for you when they found out you lied to the police.
Of course it is. I never said anything about a “random stranger” (those were Ponder Stibbon’s words) except to point out that that is NOT what we are talking about: “The officer does know that, far from being a ‘random stranger’ who ‘wandered into any house,’ the person has at least been staying there (with permission) for some time.” So at no time was I talking about a random stranger being in the house. Would the police react differently to the presence of a random stranger? Of course they would.