Landlord faces 3rd Amendment Violation

[JollyRoger]

In Texas, if a company does not mandate arbitration of employment disputes when you are hired, but later decides to change their policy to mandate arbitration of such disputes, you "accept" that policy by showing up do work the next day (even if you communicate to the company that by letting you work the next day, they are accepting your offer to employ you without subjecting you to mandated arbitration).

 

[FriendlyFire]

You can sublet. The Residential Tenancies Act in Alberta specifically allows subletting unless the landlord can show reasonable cause for refusing a sublet, which they almost never can if they try to take it to court.

If your lease allows maximum of one resident, how are you going to sublet
Landlord probably demand a new lease for two residents and extra rent.

 

[RobAnybody]

The third amendment actually favours the landlord since he is the owner.

This thread should not have proceeded past this post. I am disappoint in JR's improper understanding of Constitutional Law. The 3rd Amendment is my personal favorite Amendment. I feel about it like some people feel about the 2nd. Civilians don't house soldiers, soldiers house soldiers.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Landlord wins! Soldier, out!

 

[JollyRoger]

My thread title gets it right as it casts the landlord as the victim.

 

[Zelig]

If your lease allows maximum of one resident, how are you going to sublet
Landlord probably demand a new lease for two residents and extra rent.

You stop living there if you sublet.

It works if you want to move out either temporarily or permanently without breaking the lease. It's in the landlord's best interest to allow subletting without hassles, because if you simply break the lease and bail, they have still a legal responsibility to make their best reasonable effort to reduce any losses due to the lease being broken (advertising, accepting applicants at market rates, etc.), and you're only liable for any losses from lease-breaking after said best efforts to reduce losses have been made.

 

[Pangur Bán]

In Texas, if a company does not mandate arbitration of employment disputes when you are hired, but later decides to change their policy to mandate arbitration of such disputes, you "accept" that policy by showing up do work the next day (even if you communicate to the company that by letting you work the next day, they are accepting your offer to employ you without subjecting you to mandated arbitration).

The population of Texas are pretty servile towards their economic rulers. It's the old Marlboro man trick, sell them some free rugged individualism while poisoning them for profit (AND, here, depriving them of actual liberty).

 

[JollyRoger]

Our Supreme Court (who decided the matter) is elected in statewide elections, so they are all Republicans. Can't have any liberal judges trampling on our rights.

 

[Pangur Bán]

These are the kind of socio-legal changes that turned the early medieval warrior farmer into serf peasant familiar from the later middle ages. This stuff is truly frightening, if people understood what was happening they'd never sleep at night--thank goodness we all have sport and entertainment culture to distract us.