CAR rental and leasing services in California are getting increasingly expensive.
That’s because of the state’s new car rental laws, and now there’s even a federal law requiring car rental companies to collect rental payments on their properties.
Car rental companies are now required to collect payments from their customers and give them to the state of California in exchange for a new lease.
If the rental company has no lease on a property and the customer does not have the money, the company is required to refund the full amount of the rental.
But a California court on Tuesday ruled that CarRentalChicago and CarRescueBakersfield are not legally obligated to give money to the county because the company was not required to provide a valid lease and because the rental agreements between the company and the county were void.
The ruling, issued by Judge John A. Reitz on Monday, found that Car RentalChapters had breached their obligation to the city of Chicago.
The company had no lease, Reitz ruled.
He noted that the company had a “legal obligation” to give the money to city of Lincoln, Illinois, where it was located, as required under state law.
However, because the county of Lincoln was not in California at the time the car rental company leased its property, Reetz said, the lease was void.
“The city of Los Angeles was not a party to the transaction,” he wrote.
“Therefore, CarRocasaBakersfields lease was not valid.”
California law requires that car rental firms must provide customers with a lease when they offer a car rental service.
The law says they have to give at least one month’s notice, pay the customer at least the minimum amount required by the law, and give the customer a statement of the terms and conditions of the lease.
The city of San Diego, which is located in the county that the CarRacys are located in, did not have a lease at the beginning of its lease.
Reitz found that the city’s failure to provide the required notice “created a substantial risk of financial harm” to the company.
He also found that, based on a series of “factual allegations” by CarRiscueBakery, the companies failed to provide information that the customer should have known about the rental agreement, and “did not act in a reasonable and prudent manner in assessing the likelihood of success of the sale of the leased property.”
The ruling also found the company violated the lease agreement because the leasing company failed to inform the customer that the rental was for one month.
Reetz found that a separate provision in the lease that required CarRenters “to keep a current record of the date and time of the payment of rent” also was void because it did not provide a reasonable explanation of how it could have known the rental period was for a month.