２０分。
我在上月頂下了一家店鋪經營，是足浴店。
店鋪的經營方式是當有客人時打電話叫師傅，是散工形式。
前一手東主交給我的師傅名單，我在打電話時，他們說不肯來我店工作。因為傳統觀念認為不吉利的緣故。
同時客戶亦因為這件事不肯來。
而我獨自在店內在覺得恐懼。
細問之下才發現，原來這家店的再上一手東主（頂讓給我的東主再前一手）於店內自殺。
而頂讓給我的前東主在商談至落實過程都沒有提及過此事，明顯是故意隱瞞。
問題是，這店的單位是租的。我知道一般物業轉讓的過程如是凶宅必須講明，但我的店鋪是租的單位，而租約是前東主連同生意轉讓給我的。
租約是用她的名，沒轉我名。
我能否通過法律程序要她賠償或使交易無效，原銀奉還？請有法律相關專業人士或有相關經驗人士幫忙。
關於凶宅，請求有法律相關專業人士幫忙
2014-10-18 4:55 pm
回答 (4)
2014-10-18 8:42 pm
✔ 最佳答案
你這個情況可找律師以民事訴訟方式要求該東主賠償, 雖然租約是她的名字, 相信你在頂讓時雙方有文件簽訂 , 那便是主要證據, 鑑於該東主明知事實但從沒有向你披露, 沒有如實告知單位有發生自殺案的真相, 明顯是為達成交易而誤導, 誤導及刻意隱瞞已構成法律責任, 法官可下令東主歸還你的損失。
2014-10-19 4:01 am
兇殺的才是凶，自殺或壽盡的不是凶。
2014-10-18 9:32 pm
首先第一個重點你要清楚,關於凶宅,係法律上係冇明確定義,同時亦無需要去特別講明(除非你有問,佢呃你話唔係凶宅).
第二你地之間份合約可能只係關於一門生意頂讓.
第三係你有冇問過對方,個營業單位是否凶宅,係唯一一個理由係可以話佢講大話.
2014-10-18 13:38:53 補充：
個人意見,認為唔太樂觀,好簡單,真係打官司既話,時間可能仲長過你份租約,但你又唔可以唔交租喎,事實上就係單官司未知會點,門生意已經拖死你.
第二你地之間份合約可能只係關於一門生意頂讓.
第三係你有冇問過對方,個營業單位是否凶宅,係唯一一個理由係可以話佢講大話.
2014-10-18 13:38:53 補充：
個人意見,認為唔太樂觀,好簡單,真係打官司既話,時間可能仲長過你份租約,但你又唔可以唔交租喎,事實上就係單官司未知會點,門生意已經拖死你.
2014-10-18 7:49 pm
Not enough information to make a conclusion. However, it is potentially possible.
Although there is no law requiring the disclosure, all contracts (including leases) are based on good faith. In your case, since the suicide can affect the business and the lessor is aware of the issue, the lessor must act in good faith to disclose.
(Another example - if you want to rent a unit as a restaurant and the owner prohibits the unit to become a restaurant, the lessor has the obligation to let you know this.)
Based on the omission and an act of bad faith, the lease can be voided possibly.
What matters now is how the lease is constructed. The court will not accept a lease unless the stamp duty is paid. In other word, no stamp duty, no legal protection. Also, it is also important on how you actually end up in this situation. Based on these unknown factors, it will be difficult to say if you will succeed or not.
Although there is no law requiring the disclosure, all contracts (including leases) are based on good faith. In your case, since the suicide can affect the business and the lessor is aware of the issue, the lessor must act in good faith to disclose.
(Another example - if you want to rent a unit as a restaurant and the owner prohibits the unit to become a restaurant, the lessor has the obligation to let you know this.)
Based on the omission and an act of bad faith, the lease can be voided possibly.
What matters now is how the lease is constructed. The court will not accept a lease unless the stamp duty is paid. In other word, no stamp duty, no legal protection. Also, it is also important on how you actually end up in this situation. Based on these unknown factors, it will be difficult to say if you will succeed or not.
收錄日期: 2021-04-15 16:51:44
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141018000051KK00021