It was originally based on UK law a half a century ago. A lot has changed in those 50 years including the local definitions of a lot of English words and their interpretation. This is why it's no longer easy to get a Queen's Counsel in Singapore as the laws only vaguely resemble their origins.JR8 wrote:Ah yes: I can see a judge in court ruling 'I have reached my verdict based upon 'common sense'sundaymorningstaple wrote:Common sense? If they are not paying, it not being let is it? Once more, we're not in the UK.
What in those rules says a 'house guest' mustn't pay rent, or perhaps 'contribute to the bills'?
Of course we're not in the UK, but (again), like it or not SG law if founded upon 'UK' law. I mean for example I read a Tenancy Agreement and apart from the Diplomatic Clause, and the 'contribution to repairs' [Uniquely Singapore?]... it's identical to a 'UK' TA.
I can see where you're leaning, and I understand why. Just I can't see the legislation that supports your position. If someone can point out the black and white, it would be helpful. Meanwhile, for the sake of discussion, I feel it reasonable to highlight it's apparent absence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest