ensuring return of rental deposit?

[elhombresinnombre]

I am a lawyer

Rule 1.01 of the UK Solicitors Code of Conduct (http://www.sra.org.uk/rule1/) reads: You must uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. There's a similar clause in the equivalent code for lawyers in the USA. What does the equivalent code for lawyers in Argentina have to say?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

As in I think your advice is unethical, potentially harmful and plain awful.

You are wrong.

And FYI - while the fact that it may be true that it would be very, very difficult to toss a local out on the street who has a signed contract (not impossible mind you but the legal path is a long one), it is very possible to toss a short-term tenant out on the street. And a tourist usually doesn't have the time or money to pursue legal options.

Wrong again.

I'm pointing out that any tenant that follows your advice and just refuses to pay the last month is likely to find him/herself out on the street a few weeks early and without a deposit or a place to live. And rightfully so in my opinion.

Your legal opinion?

Shitty advice to tell someone to break a signed contract for no reason other than they *might* have an unethical owner. It's frankly unethical and I find it appalling, especially coming from a lawyer.

Church is the proper place to debate morality and ethical matters like good and evil or justice and injustice, on Sunday morning you can find many of them open.

When you talk about law, it is all about if you have right or not about something. There is not such a thing as justice.

As I properly explained, deposit must be given back at the same time you give back the keys. Otherwise your are no less than naive. And if from your ignorance you think you should pay last month and pray god to get your money back, do it, you have free will.

I was looking for the last contract I signed. It was interesting because landlord and tenant were lawyers, so it was a very fair contract with no cheating clauses because we both knew what were we signing. In this country, a contract has to follow some rules, otherwise the illegal sentences are interpreted not written. Of course you didn´t know it, don´t worry, you shouldn´t know it.

You have proved to have no idea about Argentinian law, so I suggest you make questions instead of asserts.

Regards

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Rule 1.01 of the UK Solicitors Code of Conduct (http://www.sra.org.uk/rule1/) reads: You must uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. There's a similar clause in the equivalent code for lawyers in the USA. What does the equivalent code for lawyers in Argentina have to say?

Our duty regarding ethics is related to advice properly to our client as I did.

By the way, this is a secular society.

Capítulo 3
Deberes fundamentales inherentes al ejercicio de la abogacía
Artículo 10.- Son deberes inherentes al ejercicio de la abogacía:
a) Utilizar las reglas de derecho para la solución de todo conflicto, fundamentado en los principios
de lealtad, probidad y buena fe.
b) Tener un domicilio fijo y conocido para la atención de los asuntos profesionales que se le
encomienden.
c) Atender su permanente capacitación profesional.
d) Abstenerse de promover la utilización de su firma para obtener un resultado favorable en
gestión que responda al trabajo efectivo de otro profesional.
e) Abstenerse de permitir la utilización de su nombre para nominar Estudio Jurídico con el que no
guarde vinculación profesional.
f) Abstenerse de publicitar sus servicios sin la mesura y el decoro exigidos por la dignidad de la
profesión o en base al monto de los honorarios a percibir, o que pueda inducir a engaño.
g) Evitar cualquier actitud o expresión que pueda interpretarse como tendiente a aprovechar toda
influencia política o cualquier otra situación excepcional.
h) El abogado debe respetar rigurosamente todo secreto profesional y oponerse ante los jueces u
otra autoridad al relevamiento del secreto profesional, negándose a responder las preguntas que
lo expongan a violarlo. Sólo queda exceptuado: a) Cuando el cliente así lo autorice; b) Si se
tratare de su propia defensa.
i) El abogado debe defender el derecho a la inviolabilidad del estudio y de los documentos que le
hubiesen sido confiados.

http://www.cpacf.org.ar/formularios/codigoetica.pdf

 

[citygirl]

Really, I will bow out after this but -

1) Despite you telling me I'm wrong, that doesn't make it so I do in fact strongly believe your advice is awful. It is also potentially harmful to people following it. As far as unethical, well, that is my opinion which I'm entitled to have (you know, that part telling people they should break a legally binding contract because it's convenient).

2) Again, not wrong. It's very easy to toss a short-term tenant on the street. Owner goes in, changes the locks and problem is solved. What exactly do you think the tenant is going to do, especially when they're usually tourists here for a short amount of time?

3) No, my personal opinion is that its a dishonest thing to do to chose to violate a contract for no good reason.

3) Wow, again, just wow. I'm pointing out that when someone signs a contract, they are agreeing to pay in compliance with the terms set out in a rental contract. Your advice to them to violate the terms for no valid reason is the antithesis of ethical to me. But hey, I'm one of those funny business people that considers a contract binding.

You can preach all you want about how people can do it. I am pointing out from a very pragmatic perspective which you may not understand that a foreigner just deciding not to pay the last month's rent is potentially a very.bad.idea. and additionally, I think it it just plain shitty to tell someone they can do what they want (although hey, if they get thrown out and change their plans and try to sue, maybe you can get some new clients).

 

[Maxba]

One advice for paranoid people, if you don´t have the 6th sense to feel with what kind of landlord you are dealing with when you sign, maybe better stay in a hotel or hostel....in other words I’ve never been ripped of, not in Amsterdam, not in Italy not In Buenos Aires, all of them have a bad reputation on rentals....just by checking well, take pictures if necessary etc. Just on forehand not paying the last month of rent without having any indication that the problem will occur shows your ethic might be below zero...For those kind of tenants by the way some owners will have other creative solutions...just like in any other country. ..

 

[Bajo_cero2]

1) Despite you telling me I'm wrong, that doesn't make it so

Well, tell your doctor the same next time you see him.

2) Again, not wrong. It's very easy to toss a short-term tenant on the street. Owner goes in, changes the locks and problem is solved. What exactly do you think the tenant is going to do, especially when they're usually tourists here for a short amount of time?

Fantastic. Let´s suppose a landlord is reading your "legal" advice and he is stupid enough to follows it. You know what will happens? His tenant is going to go to the police station, police will kick the landlord out of his property, he will spend night at jail and he will be criminally prosecuted. And the tenant will be back in the apartment.

3) No, my personal opinion is that its a dishonest thing to do to chose to violate a contract for no good reason.

As soon as I said from begging, if you are planning to pay all the bills and possible damages, what´s dishonest about that? The only dishonest think is the clause that says he will give you the money back later. I propose you an example: You have a business, right? Let´s do the following, I go tomorrow you give whatever you sell and in a month I pay you. No? Think about it.

Regards

 

[citygirl]

I'm not sure exactly what this means "Let´s do the following, I go tomorrow you give whatever you sell and in a month I pay you. No? Think about it."

But if you're asking me if it would work that I give you my goods and then a month later, you pay me - um..yes. That's exactly how lots of businesses work You know, I send you the goods, then I give you an invoice and then you pay me, usually 45 to 60 days later. I don't actually need to think about it. It's what I do every day. That's why things like contracts are so important. Any more questions?

PS, Not sure how its dishonest for the landlord and owner of the property to put in a clause saying he will refund the security deposit after check out assuming there are no damages. That's kind of the point and is standard operating procedure around the world. In fact, I find it quite refreshing that here, they'll give you the deposit back the day you move out. In NYC, it can take up to 90 days for the landlord to return the deposit to you.

PPS - And funny enough, I've rented apts all over the world, including probably 10 here and always gotten my deposit back in full.

 

[jez]

You don´t ask for permission, you just don´t pay last month. If you are honest, you will pay for the invoices and damages if there is any.

A contradiction; if you are honest you pay the last month as agreed in the contract.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it just easier if you are concerned about not getting your deposit back to solve the whole problem by agreeing a check out some time before you actually need to check out, maybe in the morning if you have an afternoon flight and hanging onto the keys until you get the deposit back, if they withhold anything just say you are staying.

OK not always possible but an option.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

PS, Not sure how its dishonest for the landlord and owner of the property to put in a clause saying he will refund the security deposit after check out assuming there are no damages.

Not sure?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.
I thought so. It is dishonest and I explained (not debating, I debate with other lawyers) how to solve it according to law without a trial.

That's kind of the point and is standard operating procedure around the world. In fact, I find it quite refreshing that here, they'll give you the deposit back the day you move out. In NYC, it can take up to 90 days for the landlord to return the deposit to you.

PPS - And funny enough, I've rented apts all over the world, including probably 10 here and always gotten my deposit back in full.

Well, in your ignorance you imagine that there is such a thing, but you are wrong.

Why are you so arrogant? May I suggest you as your next challenge to box with Mike Tyson? I won´t bet on you, sorry about that. I have a client who has a PHD in astrophysics, would you like to teach him about astrophysics as well?

Regards

 

[Bajo_cero2]

A contradiction; if you are honest you pay the last month as agreed in the contract.

In fact, it is not. Abusive clauses are not written according to our law.

Common law countries and civil law countries have different law systems regarding a different history background. Differences are huge.

Common law countries are based in the importance of honoring the word because its primitive roots are regarding to the word of a warrior. If a warrior didn´t honor his word he has to fight to death to re honor his name.

Roman law was a sophisticated law system developed by jurists to rule over civilians in the roman empire. Our law follows it with some small changes regarding over 2000 years of experience.

There might be some apparent coincidences (that might induce you to confusion) because england was conquered by Julius Cesar and the roman empire ruled for some time there, so they assimilated some legal institutions but in its primitive forms . In fact, most of long words in English comes from Latin (coincidences, confusion, conquered, primitive).

For the last 2.500 years there is a rule called Exceptio non adimpleti contractus that means you must honor your word only if the other person honors his. This was created to avoid that dishonest people takes advantage of honest people.

In the case we were debating, it was about a landlord who wasn´t honest, so you are release of your duty about honoring the contract.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExceptioNonAdimpletiContractus.aspx

Isn't it just easier if you are concerned about not getting your deposit back to solve the whole problem by agreeing a check out some time before you actually need to check out, maybe in the morning if you have an afternoon flight and hanging onto the keys until you get the deposit back, if they withhold anything just say you are staying.

Absolutely, proper contracts negotiation solves a lot a issues, but you need minimum knowledge about the legal system you are dealing with. Now you know that you shouldn´t sign a contract that says the deposit will be given back later.
Regards