notwithstanding the foregoing - lawyer mumbo jumbo

[PantsTent 2002]

Guaranty agreement or co-sign for an apartment lease, ends with below.  Does it mean I guarantee the rent even if 1 through 5 happens, or are 1 through 5 exceptions where I do not have to guarantee the rent.

The Guarantor(s) acknowledges that it shall have liability under this Guaranty, notwithstanding any of the foregoing: (1) That the Landlord renews the Lease, grants Tenant extensions of time within which to pay amounts due or perform any of the Tenant’s obligations under the lease, or the fact that the Guarantor was not notified of any changes or amendment to the Lease; (2) the failure of the Landlord to seek recourse against or sue the Tenant for any amounts due under the Lease prior to requiring payment from the Guarantor; (3) any belief that any other person was also going to sign or be obligated under this Guaranty; (4) the inability of the Tenant or any other guarantor to be responsible under the Lease or this Guaranty by virtue of their legal incapacity disability or bankruptcy/ (5) the fact that the guarantor was not given proper notice of the default by Tenant under the Lease.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

You remain liable if any of those happen.

[StruggleBus 3922]

I hate lawyers so much

[PantsTent 2002]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You remain liable if any of those happen.

Well, fuck.  I assumed this but I found something explaining that "notwithstanding the foregoing" is often used to list exceptions.

 

[HouTex 1878]

"Foregoing" (meaning "preceding") should have been "following" so that it would read "Notwithstanding any of the following . . . ."  So if it was written correctly it would mean that even if any of (1) through (5) occur then you are still liable.  I wouldn't recommend going all the way with it, but perhaps you can argue the language the LL drafted is vague or ambiguous or nonsensical such that it somehow relieves you of liability.  Very likely not a winner.

[Gil Bang 25975]

isn't it the general rule that if a contract is vague or unclear, that the party that wrote the contract automatically loses in the event of dispute?

[HouTex 1878]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

isn't it the general rule that if a contract is vague or unclear, that the party that wrote the contract automatically loses in the event of dispute?

No.  It's interpreted against them, especially if they drafted it, but the language and the overall agreement still must have some meaning.   

[TwiceHorn 31495]

14 minutes ago, HouTex said:

"Foregoing" (meaning "preceding") should have been "following" so that it would read "Notwithstanding any of the following . . . ."  So if it was written correctly it would mean that even if any of (1) through (5) occur then you are still liable.  I wouldn't recommend going all the way with it, but perhaps you can argue the language the LL drafted is vague or ambiguous or nonsensical such that it somehow relieves you of liability.  Very likely not a winner.

Good catch.  I read it as if it were written correctly.

I'm not even sure that creates an ambiguity.  That's such an obvious typo or misuse.

[HouTex 1878]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good catch.  I read it as if it were written correctly.

I'm not even sure that creates an ambiguity.  That's such an obvious typo or misuse.

Agreed.  That's why I would not go all the way with it.  But perhaps it's worth some settlement value.

[Gil Bang 25975]

Meanwhile, there was an interesting discussion today on my broker's website.  

One realtor was discussing some language that he wrote into an addendum that related to an escalator clause.  His buyers agree to beat any other offer by $5000.  

About half the group thought that he went too far by doing that, that he was "practicing law without a license".    We do contracts and addenda every fucking day, but we are normally just filling in blanks on a template that the lawyers drew. 

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

did he define what constitutes an offer?

[Gil Bang 25975]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

did he define what constitutes an offer?

I didn't pay attention to the document, only the argument.

 

[elfenix 34308]

notwithstanding seems like it means the opposite of how it reads.  hate that mishmash of a word.

[troph 24851]

notwithstanding seems like it means the opposite of how it reads.  hate that mishmash of a word.

Means “despite what was written...” and is often times a sign of lazy drafting unless ifs truly is an exception to the previous sentence. You can also say blah blah blah except when yada yada yada and get the same effect.

 

Twice and HouTex got this. Ya screwed.

[Gatorubet 30246]

Agreed.  That's why I would not go all the way with it.  But perhaps it's worth some settlement value.

I’d put the system on trial.

[ROFL BOX 6649]

I’d put the system on trial.

¡IT'S A GODDAMN FRINGED FLAG OF THE ADMIRALTY!

This court is NULL & VOID!!

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Gatorubet 30246]

1 hour ago, ROFL BOX said:

¡IT'S A GODDAMN FRINGED FLAG OF THE ADMIRALTY!

This court is NULL & VOID!!
 

ROFL BOX is your corporate name.  Slave.

[ROFL BOX 6649]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

ROFL BOX is your corporate name.  Slave.

I wear it proudly.