3 ms·

I'm not making any claims about statute. I'm talking about contract law, which is rather separate (except when a contract is modified by statute, which as we bo

by rlpb 8y ago

I'm not making any claims about statute. I'm talking about contract law, which is rather separate (except when a contract is modified by statute, which as we both agree isn't the case here). Ask your lawyer to explain implied terms of a contract, what implied terms might exist in your contract with your tenants with respect to expectations of the provision and maintenance of things such as locks that were present at the start of the tenancy, and what obligations you may have to maintain the same level of security and safety that existed at the time the contract was signed. Your lawyer will most likely tell you that you can't _reduce_ the security of the locks, with the baseline being something between what you implied that you would provide at the start of a tenancy and what is the norm for tenancies of the same type, and that whether or not the addition of a remote unlock facility does so or not depends on the specific circumstances that only a court can determine.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Sent this link to my attorney, interested to hear what I get back. Honestly though, if a tenant raised the issue with me prior to signing a lease, I likely wouldn't rent to them as long as I had other tenants to consider. If the issue was raised after they signed the lease, I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time or not renew their lease when it came up for renewal. Being expensive to service is a trait I can legally discriminate against, and is not protected by fair housing laws. I can appreciate the concerns, but not to the point where I'm going to waste time litigating it. It's a public policy issue that needs to be addressed.
- rlpb 8y ago
  > I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time... This would be accurate, but depending on the terms of the contract the tenant may have no obligation to do so, and you would still have an obligation to provide the same quality of lock, secure under the same reasonable threat models, as what was present at the time the contract was signed. In other words, it may be that you would not be entitled to force a smart lock [that adds extra things that compromise the security of the implied threat model such as remote unlock] on the tenant, just as you would not be entitled to remove the lock entirely. > ...or not renew their lease when it came up for renewal. Being expensive to service is a trait I can legally discriminate against, and is not protected by fair housing laws. No argument there.

by rlpb 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Sent this link to my attorney, interested to hear what I get back. Honestly though, if a tenant raised the issue with me prior to signing a lease, I likely wouldn't rent to them as long as I had other tenants to consider. If the issue was raised after they signed the lease, I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time or not renew their lease when it came up for renewal. Being expensive to service is a trait I can legally discriminate against, and is not protected by fair housing laws. I can appreciate the concerns, but not to the point where I'm going to waste time litigating it. It's a public policy issue that needs to be addressed.

rlpb 8y ago
> I'd let them know they were free to terminate the lease and move out within a reasonable amount of time... This would be accurate, but depending on the terms of the contract the tenant may have no obligation to do so, and you would still have an obligation to provide the same quality of lock, secure under the same reasonable threat models, as what was present at the time the contract was signed. In other words, it may be that you would not be entitled to force a smart lock [that adds extra things that compromise the security of the implied threat model such as remote unlock] on the tenant, just as you would not be entitled to remove the lock entirely. > ...or not renew their lease when it came up for renewal. Being expensive to service is a trait I can legally discriminate against, and is not protected by fair housing laws. No argument there.