Earlier this week a potential landlord offered me a lease saying I had already inspected the property and found no issues with it.
I asked for a chance to actually inspect before signing, and even said I would settle for a good quality video walkthrough. They told me the unit was "not available for viewing" because it wasn't finished yet, and by the time it was finished it would likely be taken.
So why did you ask me to sign a contract saying I inspected a property that it's conceptually impossible to inspect??
I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property."
Of course, still not as insane as your story.
Was it a paper lease? Because you could always cross out that section before signing, not to mention write in your own addendum. They would probably still balk, but you'd be within your rights to do so.
I wonder if a judge would keep that clause in the contract in case of litigation.
"There's a clause in here that gives some more time for certain repairs, because we're short-staffed, so we will take $50 off of your rent". Nope.
"There's a clause in here that says that your monthly payment will first be applied to late payments, fees, fines, and then your lease payment in that order." Nope.
Even then, if they got you to sign this paper saying you had inspected it, but they had not made it available for inspection and pressured you to sign or lose it, the inspection would be void as far as the tribunal that handles disputes goes. If they forced you to sign an inspection report for a unit that was not complete at the time of signing it would be open and shut as an invalid inspection. The tribunal here won't allow any claim for property damages if there is not a valid move in inspection, so it really behooves the property owner to make sure the inspection is valid if they want any damages paid for.
This is the crux of the problem when landlords are allowed to form or join an "association" that gets too pervasive.
This was at the heart of the RealPage lawsuits.
I would want to read and perhaps get legal advice before relying on that interpretation - and before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants.
Yeah, if you accidentally recorded families walking through their homes unclothed, this could land a landlord in jail.
Otherwise, you could just make contracts anytime you wanted to break the law for any reason.
Fascism was a scheme to keep the old aristocrats turning industrialists to keep control of the state, whilst still keeping it under the democratic name. This was devised in the US in the 30ies and then in the old states also. Heavily supported by the US industrialists. Without them the fascism movement had no chance.
The US scheme of fascism came up with cooperate contracts overriding state laws, also pleasing the Chicago crowd, with decentralized control. At the will of the cooperations, who know better than the government of course. That's why Rockefeller could gun down strikers without any repercussions. That's why the Railroad Commission could call state military to gun down independent oil cooperations which undercut prizes of the industrialists. That's not liberalism, that's pure fascism/cooperatism/aristocratism.
Nothing wrong with cooperatism I think.
By the way, I'm not claiming the things you describe didn't take place for the reasons you claimed. I just don't think it's accurate to describe it as based on fascism.
But the US implemented all the subsequent fascist governments until today. If in Europe, Asia or Latin America's.
Fascism first evolved in Italy, where Mussolini and his Partito Nazionale Fascista took power in 1922.
Which is funny, because if it worked like that - that any unenforceable demand in it made the whole thing invalid - then presumably the clause asserting the opposite would also be invalid.
Edit: in other words, you're not legally bound to unlawful parts of a contract.
However, I also believe that unenforceable parts of a contract have no effect, except in the minds of the parties to that contract. My suspicion is that contracts are sometimes drafted with this in mind.
If the law says you cannot do XYZ, your landlord can state otherwise in whatever verbiage but that's all void.
This is why good consumer protection laws exist, in a well functioning society there things you sign are to protect the landlord from bad renters (don't pay, cause a nuisance etc). The law in general should protect you as the tenant from a bad landlord.
Maybe that's at the gym or by the pool, and maybe you're actually not comfortable becoming a swimsuit model.
Even then, I do not consent to work as an unpaid actor even in public spaces. I'm ok to be it at conferences, organized coworking parties -- no problem. But my living space when I don't suspect it -- hell no.
Rather, they want the right to film commercially on their own property without getting consent of everyone walking by. Many years ago a local casino was being used for a movie shoot, there were signs at the door saying that they're shooting a movie in here, if you're inside the casino it's possible you'll show up in the background of a shot. By entering you agree to this. An apartment can't do something like that because not entering is not a realistic option, so they're putting it in the rental agreement instead.
Oh man if I had a pound for every time I've had a corporate dogsbody try to invent meanings of legal wording that doesn't actually exist and gaslight me...
They are usually so passionate about it too. A simple "ah ok cool so you can add that word to the document" really annoys them.
The other classic is just "it's just standard wording". Well yeah McDonald's is also "standard" food for many people but I massively disagree with that too
Be reasonable.