Peruse through the agreement again, does it contained any clause which requires a prior notice for termination? Some standard agreement does comes with it. Upon the service of prior notice, all the deposits are refunded.

Some landlords are "threatening" in nature, they threatened but in order to enforce it, they will need to go through the legal process which is quite tedious. Try to talk nicely with the landlord and gain his empathy. You'll be surprised how sympathetic people can be when they truly understand you nature.

Most importantly, forget your ego and don't be prideful during the negotiation.

By the way, are you renting it under a "Sdn Bhd" or individual?

That's a very poorly drafted agreement isn't it? The purpose of prior notice to terminate is so that the landlord can find time to search for a new tenant and without the need to penalize the current tenant.

What is the point of serving prior notice and upon expiry of the notice, still have the tenant's deposit forfeited and then need to pay rental for all the unexpired term?

Which idiot drafted the agreement?

the rationale is legally and common-sense flawed in every aspect.

The forfeiture and penalty is true if either parties terminate the agreement without prior notice since it constitutes an "unfair" breach by giving parties no time to remedy BUT if there is a prior notice then it makes absolutely no sense.

If either way, the parties are going to forfeit and penalize the other irrespective of the prior notice then why compel the parties to an extra obligation? Might as well just drop the bomb and go.

There is a reason for the prior notice and not just "by the way".

But it is a good experience to TS though since now he is going to be super meticulous and careful on all documents he is going to sign. Whatever it is, I do hope the landlord refunds to TS the deposits and stuffs and stop threatening to sue since it is basically useless to sue anyway. The reason why you are leaving the premise is because you earn insufficiently, suing is a waste of time, costs and money.

if you read back TS's grounds of argument, he is a lay person so he may not necessarily be well versed when it comes to tenancy agreement and since his business is suffering, i assumed safely that this is his first time renting a commercial unit?

further, he may be persuaded to sign the agreement by the agents or something like that. who knows?

if you look at the issue as a whole, both are not distinct and separate but rather to be read together.

my question is this, if you have the answer; why put in a clause for prior notice of termination when either way, the deposit is going to be forfeited and the tenant will be penalized by the landlord?

interpreting this, whether a prior notice is served or not, there is only one outcome for the tenant.

if you can agree with me on this then comes the second question; what compels then for the tenant to serve the prior notice (which is an redundant obligation which serves no purpose?).

the crux of the matter is not whether the landlord is being unscrupulous or the tenant is trying to get out of a bad bargain but on the issue that whoever drafting the agreement should be shot and killed.

This post has been edited by shaniandras2787: Oct 31 2017, 11:58 AM

errr.... i think you better check back what TS wrote. I think TS replied there is a "3 months prior notice" to this effect.

like i said earlier, it's not about landlords being greedy assholes or tenants being sore losers, it's about improper drafted agreements by idiots which resulted in all these unnecessary disputes.

every clause must serve its purpose and not there just because it "has" to be there. people need to see the rationale behind it.

an agreement or contract is a mutual agreement between 2 parties. there is no trite law to say that parties cannot terminate without consequences but it must make sense. of course, TS made a mistake in trusting whoever drafted the agreement and signed the agreement without properly reading it first, that cannot be argued but i am just sadden by the fact that there are too many "pretending lawyers" in the society right now thinking they are qualified.

but of course, the outcome of the example you have cited is ridiculous because the example in itself is ridiculous. do you think a sane person would agree to a 1 month prior notice?

litigation exists because it is always arguable but let me reiterate, i am not here to argue against the landlord or for the tenant but rather on the subject matter which causes all these.

just a reminder to people to don't embark on drafting legal documents if the knowledge is sub-par.

I guess there is no way in putting sense into you because truly, it can be deciphered that you have taken the position of the landlord rather than taking this entire matter objectively as a third person.

but let me just at least make my last attempt:-
1) signed documents are lazy people's argument into enforcing one's rights because clearly there is an assumption of law for that so yes, this is to the landlord;

2) one must not discount the fact that the tenant signed the document without reading but of course, taking into account item no. 1, the tenant cannot deny "not understanding the nature of its contents";

3) as you have already mentioned and I have also already mentioned, there are not 2 separate distinct matter but 2 separate matter to be read as a whole;

4) what is the rationale of serving notice when either way, the tenant will be penalized? let me give you an example so that you could better understand this - if you are served a summon for running the traffic light and in the summon, it says pays RM50 if settle within 7 days and pays RM100 if settle after 7 days, it gives you an incentive to settle within the first period BUT what if there is no difference in payment whether you settle within the first or second period? of course, you must take out that inner self good law abiding citizen character that you have in you;

5) the term "unscrupulous" can be defined and interpreted in many ways, for instance, deliberately taking advantage of someone else weakness? fraudsters always take advantage of their victims weak point. if you are dirt poor and people comes and convincingly offer you money, you will surely bite the bait despite needing to sacrificing something in advance. it's desperation that calls.

Yet again, (i do not know how many times I must repeat this), I am not challenging the validity of the agreement nor is picking sides, I'm picking on the fact that it is a badly drafted agreement. that's all hence i have no idea why there are white knights out to defend this "landlord" as we speak.

Has our society dipped to such a state where people is unable to not pick sides on a discussion?

It is almost sad to note.

why are you referring to general tenancy agreement when we are discussing this very specific tenancy agreement that TS has signed. at the very least, let's try to not derail this thread :haha:

my contention is this, if it is the landlord who drafted the agreement then more the reason to believed that the landlord wanted to take advantage of the tenant?

either way, there is no end to this because you have pick sides so no matter what is being thrown here into discussion, you will at attempt to rebut me.

point to note, this is not about you or me but TS and the agreement and since our "discussion" which you have derailed serves no purpose to TS or the issues that TS is facing, i guess i'll stop wasting time trying to make sense and focus on something more substantial.

cheers~