To cut a long story short, my boyfriend and I have been given a letter telling us we are to attend court in Higuey on Friday. We own a Gift Shop on a Plaza (strip of beach) in Uvero Alto and have apparently breached our contract with the Plaza which is why we've now been taken to court.
The letter was delivered to us by the Politur in Uvero Ato (they had apparently been asked to deliver it to us from the Higuey office). The letter says we have violated an article in our contract. The article is: No animals to be kept on the Plaza permanently.
We own a 9 month old puppy who we bring to the shop about 3 - 4 times a week. He is a domestic animal who is always on a leash and tied up outside the shop. He is hidden behind a rack of paintings and usually spends the day asleep. Before we bought the shop we asked the other owners of shops on the Plaza whether they minded us bringing our dog - they are a married couple who own 2 seperate shops and their answer was no, they did not mind. We asked the question more out of politeness as as far as we were concerned we had alright read the contract which stated that animals could not be there permanently. As I mentioned, our dog comes 3 - 4 times a week which we don't consider to be permanently. He does not sleep on the Plaza.
We bought the shop in April and have been bringing our dog with us since. We never had an issue until about 2 months ago. 2 months ago we were approached by one of the other shop owners and told we could no longer bring our dog with us. The lady in question is a member of the family who owns the parcel of land we are on, and although her mother is the person we have the contract with, this lady considers herself to be the representative of the owners and therefore deals with any "issues".
Once we started discussing it we were told that the issue was not in fact with our dog specifically. Another shop had been sold to 2 ladies who stated they wanted to bring 2 parrots to the beach with them to hang outside their shop (as a sales ploy). The "rep" of the Plaza told the ladies they couldn't have the parrots (because she herself could see the reason behind having them). The question then came up as to why they weren't allowed to have parrots when we brought our dog with us. We told the "rep" that in our eyes there was no reason for the parrots (the ladies did not already own them, they had the intention of buying them purely for the sales attraction) but we didn't have a problem if they wanted to bring them.
The "rep" offered us a "compromise" of having our dog kept in a pen round the back of the shops (still on Plaza land). We refused this as we like to have our puppy where we can see him to make sure he is OK and properly fed and watered etc. throughout the day. This compromise struck us as strange seeing as our dog would still in fact be on the Plaza. Now the question comes up that is it just an issue with us having the dog outside our shop? The contract doesn't state anything other than "No animals to be kept on the Plaza permanently". It does not state no animals outside shops etc.
Another issue we have is that the owner herself did in fact allow a dog to be kept on the property permanently. The dog belonged to an employee of hers who slept in her shop over night as security, and therefore this man?s dog acted as a guard dog for her property. This dog was an "adopted stray" who was not domestic or vaccinated and was allowed to walk, sit, and sleep where over it chose.
The "rep" also has a bird collection which is kept on the Plaza permanently. Until this issue came up these birds were always kept around the side of her shop. They have since been moved to the back of her shop - but are still on the Plaza - permanently. She moved her birds when she was offering us the compromise of a pen for our dog.
We talked more with the "rep" and explained that in our eyes we were not in breach of the contract. She tried to say that may the "permanently" issue was lost in translation. I explained that I understood the translation and that she would have to seek legal advice on it.
Things died down and no more was said until one day we had a visit from the Marina Police. Most shop owners on the Plaza give the Marina Police a weekly tip as they occasionally pop down of a night time and make sure the beach is secure - which is in all out interests. The Marina Police told us that he had had a complaint from the Hotel Manager (we work just outside a hotel). Someone in the hotel had apparently been barked at by our dog. I asked for details of the complaint, when it happened, where, the name of the person who complained etc. At this point the story changed slightly and we were told the complaint had actually come from the Hotel Security Manager. We asked similar questions again and the story then changed for a third time. The complaint had then come from the Plaza. At this point we knew exactly who the complaint had come from and showed the Marina Police a copy of our contract. We explained what was actually behind the complaint; he looked very embarrassed and told us not to worry about what he had said. Our dog was not with us that day either and the Police thought the stray was ours which shows how discreetly our dog is kept.
We went to the hotel the next day just to ask for ourselves whether they knew of any reports and sure enough, they didn't know what we were talking about. I can only assume the Police had been given false information by the "rep" and been asked to inquire.
I say a long story short.....
When we go to court do anyone know whether the contract will be read and viewed as a word for word binding contract, or whether the court has the power to cast their own opinion on the matter.
My concern is that as this has come from the Politur it will be a "tip off" job and therefore the decision will have been made as to the outcome before we are even heard.
Legal advice, solicitor recommendations and perhaps past experience would be appreciated. Should this even be coming from the Politur? I don't have court experience in the UK or here, but I would have thought this would be a civil matter seeing as its private property and therefore don't understand the Politur involvement. This is our first experience of the legal system in the DR so we don't quite know what to expect.
Many thanks
Lauren
The letter was delivered to us by the Politur in Uvero Ato (they had apparently been asked to deliver it to us from the Higuey office). The letter says we have violated an article in our contract. The article is: No animals to be kept on the Plaza permanently.
We own a 9 month old puppy who we bring to the shop about 3 - 4 times a week. He is a domestic animal who is always on a leash and tied up outside the shop. He is hidden behind a rack of paintings and usually spends the day asleep. Before we bought the shop we asked the other owners of shops on the Plaza whether they minded us bringing our dog - they are a married couple who own 2 seperate shops and their answer was no, they did not mind. We asked the question more out of politeness as as far as we were concerned we had alright read the contract which stated that animals could not be there permanently. As I mentioned, our dog comes 3 - 4 times a week which we don't consider to be permanently. He does not sleep on the Plaza.
We bought the shop in April and have been bringing our dog with us since. We never had an issue until about 2 months ago. 2 months ago we were approached by one of the other shop owners and told we could no longer bring our dog with us. The lady in question is a member of the family who owns the parcel of land we are on, and although her mother is the person we have the contract with, this lady considers herself to be the representative of the owners and therefore deals with any "issues".
Once we started discussing it we were told that the issue was not in fact with our dog specifically. Another shop had been sold to 2 ladies who stated they wanted to bring 2 parrots to the beach with them to hang outside their shop (as a sales ploy). The "rep" of the Plaza told the ladies they couldn't have the parrots (because she herself could see the reason behind having them). The question then came up as to why they weren't allowed to have parrots when we brought our dog with us. We told the "rep" that in our eyes there was no reason for the parrots (the ladies did not already own them, they had the intention of buying them purely for the sales attraction) but we didn't have a problem if they wanted to bring them.
The "rep" offered us a "compromise" of having our dog kept in a pen round the back of the shops (still on Plaza land). We refused this as we like to have our puppy where we can see him to make sure he is OK and properly fed and watered etc. throughout the day. This compromise struck us as strange seeing as our dog would still in fact be on the Plaza. Now the question comes up that is it just an issue with us having the dog outside our shop? The contract doesn't state anything other than "No animals to be kept on the Plaza permanently". It does not state no animals outside shops etc.
Another issue we have is that the owner herself did in fact allow a dog to be kept on the property permanently. The dog belonged to an employee of hers who slept in her shop over night as security, and therefore this man?s dog acted as a guard dog for her property. This dog was an "adopted stray" who was not domestic or vaccinated and was allowed to walk, sit, and sleep where over it chose.
The "rep" also has a bird collection which is kept on the Plaza permanently. Until this issue came up these birds were always kept around the side of her shop. They have since been moved to the back of her shop - but are still on the Plaza - permanently. She moved her birds when she was offering us the compromise of a pen for our dog.
We talked more with the "rep" and explained that in our eyes we were not in breach of the contract. She tried to say that may the "permanently" issue was lost in translation. I explained that I understood the translation and that she would have to seek legal advice on it.
Things died down and no more was said until one day we had a visit from the Marina Police. Most shop owners on the Plaza give the Marina Police a weekly tip as they occasionally pop down of a night time and make sure the beach is secure - which is in all out interests. The Marina Police told us that he had had a complaint from the Hotel Manager (we work just outside a hotel). Someone in the hotel had apparently been barked at by our dog. I asked for details of the complaint, when it happened, where, the name of the person who complained etc. At this point the story changed slightly and we were told the complaint had actually come from the Hotel Security Manager. We asked similar questions again and the story then changed for a third time. The complaint had then come from the Plaza. At this point we knew exactly who the complaint had come from and showed the Marina Police a copy of our contract. We explained what was actually behind the complaint; he looked very embarrassed and told us not to worry about what he had said. Our dog was not with us that day either and the Police thought the stray was ours which shows how discreetly our dog is kept.
We went to the hotel the next day just to ask for ourselves whether they knew of any reports and sure enough, they didn't know what we were talking about. I can only assume the Police had been given false information by the "rep" and been asked to inquire.
I say a long story short.....
When we go to court do anyone know whether the contract will be read and viewed as a word for word binding contract, or whether the court has the power to cast their own opinion on the matter.
My concern is that as this has come from the Politur it will be a "tip off" job and therefore the decision will have been made as to the outcome before we are even heard.
Legal advice, solicitor recommendations and perhaps past experience would be appreciated. Should this even be coming from the Politur? I don't have court experience in the UK or here, but I would have thought this would be a civil matter seeing as its private property and therefore don't understand the Politur involvement. This is our first experience of the legal system in the DR so we don't quite know what to expect.
Many thanks
Lauren
