16 Jan
2013
16 Jan
'13
6:45 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor <ggs at shiresoft.com> wrote:
I think what's missing here is that Sellam's "storage" was a warehouse
and
not
a storage locker(s) (ie Public Storage and their ilk). It was
"commercial" property
and as such there was a lease. If not in fact, then implied (if implied
then CA
statutes still apply to a "default" lease arrangement). That connotes a
set of legal
conditions on the landlord (as well as the tenant).
Ah, this makes sense now. I missed the commercial part. I withdraw my
earlier criticism.