To respond accurately petsupply to our question it is essential to know the difference between the

How many times have you wanted to keep a dog at home, but have you heard the answer: "the house rules prohibiting pets"? And 'the legal prohibition of pets in your own home?
To respond accurately petsupply to our question it is essential to know the difference between the house rules of contractual and what kind of meetings; and again between meeting regulations, approved unanimously by condominiums and one approved by a simple majority of the same. Absolute enemy of our four-legged friends is mainly the settlement of a contractual nature, which is prepared by the manufacturer of the entire building and is attached to the contract of sale of individual apartments. The rules laid down in this Regulation shall be signed by the buyer at the time of purchase of the property and shall be binding upon all those who in any way, they will enjoy the apartment. We are, therefore, in the presence of a contract (hence the term contractual petsupply settlement) and any clause containing the prohibition of pets is unassailable.
It 'should be distinguished from the absolute prohibition of pets in the condo (which refers petsupply to the previous case) from the prohibition to hold more flexible, in a condominium, animals that may disturb the peace or public hygiene. petsupply In fact, a judgment issued by former petsupply district court in Campobasso on 5/12/1990 states: "if a contractual provision contained in a regulation prohibiting petsupply the possession of animals that may disturb the peace or the hygiene of the community, the mere possession of dogs, or other pets, it is not sufficient to impose such a ban to condominiums being where it is found necessary to effectively and concretely the injury caused by the dog-collar activities, in terms of quietness and hygiene. " The Judge, in the event that it is proven to the injury caused by the dog to the community, could, with a prowedimento emergency pursuant to art. 700 Code of Civil Procedure, order the forced removal of the dog, which would be entrusted to the custody of specialized bodies petsupply with absolute prohibition to return inside the building. Unfortunately, a decision to this effect was issued by the court of Naples.
Now put aside the discourse on the house rules and let us analyze the contractual meeting regulations. In this case we must determine whether the regulation was approved by a majority of the condominiums or was voted unanimously, that all the owners of the apartments. In the first case our beloved four-legged friends are playing at home! In fact, any clause containing the prohibition of pets is not absolute: an 'assembly that does not reach unanimity can not force a condominium to give up one's right. In that respect petsupply are several court rulings petsupply that declare the nullity of clauses relating to the prohibition of pets in condominium, condominium in a regulation adopted by a simple majority. Among the many decisions we remember one issued by the Court of Piacenza which defines the keeping of animals in a building, such as: "the explication of a manorial rights which may be prevented only if the property petsupply owner will be contractually bound not to hold animals in your apartment, unable to meeting regulations voted by a simple majority, to establish limits to the rights and powers of a condominium on his exclusive property. " The argument in question is pronounced even in the Supreme Court dated December 4, 1993 with the decision petsupply No. 12028 which established "the prohibition to keep the common pets in the apartments can not be contained in ordinary petsupply condominium regulations, approved by the majority of participants. " Therefore, the judgment continues, "in the absence petsupply of a unanimous vote, the above provisions are ineffective even in respect of those condos that have contributed, with their favorable vote, to its approval." The judgment of the Supreme Court is based on the assumption that the demonstrations voting under consideration petsupply are nothing more than unilateral acts, which do not have the force of law because it does not exist in a contract.
If, however, the prohibition was contained within a building regulations approved unanimously, the decision would be akin to a contractual agreement to produce binding for all. Therefore, in this case, the rules are seen above for contractual regulation. In any case it is preferable, before purchasing