Landlords Letter To Tenant Insufficient Notice Of: Fill & Download for Free

Landlord/Tenant laws generally have very specific communication requirements for landlord notices to the tenant, up to and including eviction notices.Landlords also deserve some formality in return. That said, if email is an accepted method of contact with an established history of success, you could probably send such a notice via email.Caveat Emptor. Send the email, sure, prepare for it to be insufficient.Often on Quora, questions do not tell quite enough of the backstory.How are you “ending” your lease? Are you not renewing the lease, or breaking it? Are the financial obligations to the landlord current?I’m sure this isn’t you, but many who ask “can I just email such and such” have a secret wish to somehow frustrate the recipient or avoid other forms of contact when they would be more appropriate.Ending any contract, on schedule or otherwise, should be done with the level of respect due that contract. This means a bit of adulting, including sending a certified letter which can be tracked/verified if any contention whatsoever exists in your relationship.If there is any possibility of a claim in either direction, an email will likely be insufficient.“Your Honor, I sent an email” would not carry needed verification weight. And the landlord can easily deny receipt (no, automatic receipt notices via email won’t fly.)Be responsible. Do the job.

Would slavery have ended sooner if economists of the time hadn't openly embraced it as an international, unregulated trade? How much more quickly would it have ended if the economists were themselves slaves?Oh my. This is a very strange question because it gets the position of early economists exactly backwards. The classical economists, from Adam Smith onwards, all opposed slavery. If you doubt me, here are some quotes from Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence, which are themselves quoted in Weingast (2016). (Italicized paragraphs come from Smith.)Smith’s argument about slavery reported in the notes on his Lectures on Jurisprudence (LJ(A)) begins with an examination of incentives and the inefficiencies of slavery.The slave or villain who cultivated the land cultivated it entirely for his master; whatever it produced over and above his maintenance belonged to the landlord; he had therefore no inducement to be at any great expense or trouble in manuring or tilling the land; if he made it produce what was sufficient for his own maintenance this was all that he was anxious about. The overseer perhaps by a hearty drubbing or other hard usage might make him exert himself a little farther, so as to produce from the farm a small portion for the landlord; but this would not be very great, and accordingly we see that a farm which yielded 1/6 part of the produce to the master was reckoned to be tollerably well cultivated. [LJ(A) 112-13:185-86]Smith contrasts the lack of incentives for production under slavery with a free farmer who pays a fixed rent to the landholder:[A]s the free tenant pays a stated rent to the master, whatever he makes the farm produce above that rent is intirely his own property, and the master can not exact as he could from the ancient villains or slaves exact, any part they have saved above the rent, what they had saved out of the part allowed for their maintenance. This gives them much greater spirit and alacrity for their work; they will then be at expense to manure and improve their land, and will soon bring it to that degree of cultivation as to be able to pay 1/3 part to their masters and nevertheless have a much better as well as a more certain livelyhood out of the remaining two thirds; and whatever they produce above that, which is supposed to be about 1/3 of the produce, is altogether their own. Such a manner of cultivation is therefore far I preferable to that by slaves, not only to the servants but even to the master. [LJ(A) 113-14:186]As the above passage attests, Smith concluded that free tenancy was vastly superior economically to slavery.Not only did Smith and the later classical economists argue against slavery, they were criticized by slavery apologists for doing so. George Fitzhugh, an American sociologist and advocate for slavery, began his book Sociology for the South with the following passage:Political economy is the science of free society. Its theory and its history alike establish this position. Its fundamental maxim Laissez-faire and "Pas trop gouverner," are at war with all kinds of slavery, for they in fact assert that individuals and peoples prosper most when governed least.Much of the book is a direct attack on Adam Smith. Fitzhugh felt that Laissez-faire would immiserate the poor and that slavery was a kinder, gentler system that would take care of their needs:The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism. In fact, the ordinary wages of common labor are insufficient to keep up separate domestic establishments for each of the poor, and association or starvation is in many cases inevitable. In free society, as well in Europe as in America, this is the accepted theory, and various schemes have been resorted to, all without success, to cure the evil. The association of labor properly carried out under a common head or ruler, would render labor more efficient, relieve the laborer of many of the cares of household affairs, and protect and support him in sickness and old age, besides preventing the too great reduction of wages by redundancy of labor and free competition. Slavery attains all these results. What else will?Thomas Carlyle, another prominent slavery apologist, also criticized economists for opposing slavery. It was in his “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question” that he coined the phrase “dismal science” to refer to the discipline of economics because economists opposed slavery. Here’s the passage where Carlyle uses the term “dismal science.”Truly, my philanthropic friends, Exeter Hall Philanthropy is wonderful; and the Social Science—not a “gay science,” but a rueful—which finds the secret of this universe in “supply-and-demand,” and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is also wonderful. Not a “gay science,” I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science. These two, Exeter Hall Philanthropy and the Dismal Science, led by any sacred cause of Black Emancipation, or the like, to fall in love and make a wedding of it,—will give birth to progenies and prodigies; dark extensive moon-calves, unnameable abortions, wide-coiled monstrosities, such as the world has not seen hitherto!Keep in mind while reading that passage that Exeter Hall was the meeting place of the Anti-Slavery Society, so when he refers to “Exeter Hall Philanthropy” he means the anti-slavery movement.1840 meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society in Exeter HallLevi and Peart have a great pair of articles detailing the debate between Carlyle and John Stuart Mill if you want to know more. Mill rebuked Carlyle in a letter to the editor published a month after Carlyle’s essay, reiterating Mill’s case for freedom and against slavery.When I read this question, I was baffled, because it seems that the person asking the question has read somewhere that early economists supported slavery. So I did some digging and I found one article making that claim, “Slavery as free trade” by Blake Smith.It’s a bit of a strange article. It focuses only on the French Physiocrats, a pre-Smithian group of economists. It focuses on arguments made by Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay and André Morellet, both of whom pointed to the deregulation of the Atlantic slave trade as an example of the effects of deregulation.The article clearly has an anti-capitalist and anti-economics agenda, and I expect that someone casually reading it might take come away believing that early economists supported slavery. However, that’s not what the article actually shows:Gournay and his entourage revolutionised economic thinking by calling for the systematic elimination of international and domestic trade barriers such as state monopolies, guilds and prohibitions on foreign imports. Never before had a group of thinkers so directly challenged mercantilist ideas. When the French monarchy had deregulated the slave trade in the 1720s, it had acted out of desperation in regard to a particular crisis, not out of a conviction that mercantilism itself had failed. It was only three decades later that members of the Gournay Circle observed the dramatic growth of the slave trade and slave-based colonial economies, and drew a more general conclusion. They argued that the slave trade’s success proved that deregulation should be pursued not just as a last-ditch tactic, but as a deliberate and comprehensive strategy. The slave trade showed that the top-down regulations of mercantilism were obsolete.The Gournay Circle lobbied the French monarchy for sweeping changes. One of its most important targets was the French East India Company, the successor to [John] Law’s ambitious super-corporation. Deprived of its monopoly over the French Atlantic slave trade in 1720, this state monopoly company was now responsible for all French trade with the Indian Ocean region. No private traders were allowed to sail east past the Cape of Good Hope. The Company managed to make a reasonable profit most years. However, it neither satisfied French demand for South Asian commodities nor exported more than a handful of French goods to South Asia. It ran a massive trade deficit and, by the middle of the 18th century, was sinking into debt.The economic argument being made by the Gournay Circle here is quite sound, and in fact it has the structure (though not the mathematical sophistication) of a difference-in-differences model.The argument can be summarized like this: Prior to 1720, state monopolies controlled trade in both the Atlantic and Indian oceans. After 1720, a state monopoly controlled trade in the Indian ocean but not the Atlantic. Trade greatly increased in the Atlantic after 1720 but not in the Indian ocean. This is evidence that free trade promotes commerce more than state monopolies. QED.Notice that no part of this argument has anything to do with the things being traded! The same logic that applies to the markets for cinnamon and cloves applies to the market for chattel slaves. One can love cinnamon and hate slavery and still use them both as examples in an argument about free trade. Modern economists will often skip the example altogether and just talk in terms of “good X” and “good Y” because the concrete examples we use are really orthogonal to economic theory.Maybe an expert on the physiocrats can come along and shed some light on more specific statements they made about slavery. My suspicion is that they just used it as an example here and there and never said much about it directly. It is still a moral failing if the physiocrats didn’t come out and condemn slavery like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and the other classical economists. But referring to it in an example is very different from outright supporting it.

You have not provided sufficient information. Actually that may be understandable since Quora may not provide sufficient space to include sufficient information with questions.If you have not already done so, send each tenant a certified letter, return receipt requested, calling attention to the fact that the property has a new owner. Included in the letter provide information on how to pay the rent. Then provide a fortnight for them to respond.If the tenants have already received sufficient notice, then give them a deadline via a certified letter. If that doesn’t work, hire an attorney who is experienced in such matters. The experience of the attorney is important since an attorney experienced only in other matters may not provide adequate advice or take proper action.If they do pay the rent, clearly state, by letter, a policy on rent paying, i.e., what methods are acceptable, deadlines, penalties, etc. Try to word the letter nicely instead of acting like a mean landlord. Anyone can slip up and pay a few days late; that is insufficient reason to become alarmed or take action.Decades ago I owned a four unit apartment building. I found that most tenants are quite reasonable and do not cause problems, but there are a few who can be a real headache. Take care not to irritate the reasonable tenants!