Weird contract stipulation. WTF?

Okay, I work in property management and found this in the Disclosure Agreement of a property we’ve just taken over:

Okay, I’m new at this – but how the hell does a qualification like that come into existence?

And how the hell could such a business model come to someone’s imagination, much less succeed? It sounds like the pipe-dream of a paedo with a case of Johnson & Johnson’s No More Tears[sup]tm[/sup] baby shampoo.

I’ll let someone else try to explain why and how a qualification like that comes into existence.

But I’ve seen commercials for children’s hair salons before, and know where a couple are located. Would I take my kid there? Maybe. I might be inclined to try to cut my young child’s hair myself like my mother and my sister-in-law. (At this point, sis-in-law’s goal is to keep my niece’s bangs out of her eyes).

These are just the results from my first page of Google results–the ones that had actual webaddresses, and not directory listings, or franchise information (so far as I could see there are several other franchises in this market).

I declined to inspect any pages for the bio-degradable hair products restriction, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The big idea for many of these places is to make getting one’s child’s hair cut more fun and less stressful for everyone, by making it a very kidfriendly environment. I don’t know that that is a bad thing.

This area seems completely arbitrary. Is it some sort of standard?

My guess is that there was a lease for such a salon already in existence (or planned) when that stipulation was written. I’ve seen stranger lease provisions.

I work in specialised securities and read weirder covenants all the time (I was going to write out what I do but I’m paranoid). There was one time I had to read through all these ones about grocery stores. WTF?

I can’t believe I’m writing this but lawyers usually show up to slap one another on the wrist so IAAL but not YOUR lawyer and am merely relating my experience.

All the kid provisions seem a bit odd, but not allowing adult salons makes sense. All the hair coloring, permanants and other chemicals can make for rather nasty smells and such. I can see not wanting that around the property.

Really. Have you ever walked past a hair salon at the mall? Those places reek. [Insert barfy smile here] I agree with the guess that a pre-existing kids salon was allowed, but the property owners wanted to make sure that the salon didn’t expand into adult operations.

Where I lived for years, instances showed up every year that weren’t specified in the lease. Every year a new very specific clause came into being so the offending practice could be stopped. Some hairdressers work out of a home. I don’t plan on discussing the legality of this. Some people do this for extra money.

Larry, do you do residential or commercial only?

That’s exactly why I just go to my local supercuts. They pretty much only do cuts (they have coloring services but no one seems to use them) so I don’t have to deal with it. My SO gets his bleached, I went with him exactly once and never went back cause I couldn’t stand it.

It’s pretty simple. When the local hair salon moved in, they banged out a deal with the landlord that no future tenants could compete with them.

I don’t see how restricting it to a children’s salon, specifically, makes sense, if what they are trying to to is reduce the number of harsh chemicals around. Just having the restrictions for ‘green’ hair-care product usage would do it.

Sounds like they grandfathered in an existing kids’ salon.

I don’t know about the kids’ exemption bit, but the condo my ex mother-in-law lived in used to be owned by someone who ran a hair dressing business out of it. The sink and most of the countertops in the bathroom were almost completely destroyed by the use and disposal of chemicals used to color, process, and treat hair. Everything was eroded and stained, and had to be replaced. I don’t know about the pipes, but I would imagine much of that had to be replaced too.

Part of the problem may have to do with the disposal of “hazardous waste” - the disposal of hair colorants and hair setting and hair straightening products.

And after buzzing through the contract, they bobbed their heads in agreement over the terms.

Yeah, I guess it’s not that strange. Y’all are right – most likely language included to allow an existing situation while protecting against future undesirables. Just looked weird. I’d never even heard of a “Pre-adolescent service station” before.

Savannah, we’re mostly residential. The commercial properties we manage seem to be mostly mixed residential/commercial.

And gigi? Booooooooooo!


(Damn, missed an opportunity to edit for the first time, instead of posting again like a dumbass.)

I worked in commercial property management for a while - I didn’t negotiate leases, but I’ve seen my share. This is probably dead-on. I believe the term is a “non-compete” clause.

If the retail concourse in our building has a beauty shop, then all future retail leases will have a clause banning anyone from say - leasing the space to run a newsstand, and then convert it to a beauty shop. It protects the business (lessee? lessor? I forget) from having to compete with another similar business in the same building, and helps the landlord pick the types of businesses they have, and maintain some variety.

I don’t know what the case would be here, but maybe they had a bad experience with something either at that property or another at some point in time. I think a lot of times it is a case of someone doing something that would have been a no-no but no one ever thought to include it in a contract. For example, at the university I went to there was one spring where dozens of people had the sudden desire to scale the sides of the old brick buildings on campus. Just to climb them from the outside for the hell of it. (Some people got pretty far before tumbling to the ground and having everyone cheer for them…) And when the campus police showed up, they could never do anything about it because apparently in the university’s code of conduct, there was nothing about “You may not climb the outside of a building.” The next year, obviously, it was. but to someone who doesn’t know where the story came from, it looks pretty bizarre to have a rule about not climbing a building.

I just asked because I work in a property management office in Victoria. I’m the admin for the residential property managers. :slight_smile: Carry on!