3 ms·
> They paid for an improvement to the rental property, how come the landlord didn't split that with them. It just seems unfair. In business, the landlord is re
by vacri 9y ago
> They paid for an improvement to the rental property, how come the landlord didn't split that with them. It just seems unfair.
In business, the landlord is renting a space, and the company renting fits it out. You could spend more than several years' rent on a fit-out, why should the landlord goes halvsies in that case?
- raverbashing 9y agoBecause you can then rent for a bigger amount (conditional on it being the tenant that needs what you have fitted), which is not so hard
- taurath 9y agoIf there are more restauranteurs out there that don’t know about the grease trap regulation, then maybe not.
- raverbashing 9y agoSounds like an opportunity to educate them (before the city inspectors show up, at least) Though, yeah, depending on the area I don't expect adherence (or enforcement) to be much effective, which doesn't seem to be the case for where this restaurant was located though
- marak830 9y agoAnyone who runs a restaurant that doesn't know what a grease trap is, hasn't actually worked in a restaurant. Which I believe sums up this author.
- vacri 9y agoThe difference between "the rent for this space" and "the rent for this space plus a new grease trap" is going to be nowhere near recouping money on the trap. Like a car, expensive upgrades generally mean very little to future worth. It also works in reverse though - when you leave a premises, you don't have to strip out your custom fit-out and put the space back into how it looked before you left. The landlord can't say "I never liked your choice of lighting, so put it back the way it was", for example.