4 ms·
Aren't people obliged to minimize their own and the other part's loss in contracts in the US? In my country, me moving out and saying I won't continue to pay,
by matsemann 5y ago
Aren't people obliged to minimize their own and the other part's loss in contracts in the US?
In my country, me moving out and saying I won't continue to pay, while the contract end date is still far in the future would of course be a breach of the contract. But that doesn't mean the landlord then can let the house sit empty for the rest of the contract time and force me to cover their loss. Landlord would instead have to try and minimize their losses by finding a new tenant, and what I would owe the landlord would be their costs to do so and the time the apartment stood empty.
Edit: "mitigation of damage" might be the US term for it. From Cornell: The mitigation of damages doctrine, also known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences, prevents an injured party from recovering damages that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. The duty to mitigate damages is most traditionally employed in the areas of tort and contract law. To me that reads like if you want to void the contract, and the landlord doesn't accept a reasonable tenant to take over, the landlord might have to carry their losses themselves. My guess (given laws about renting being very in favor of tenants) is that there most places even might be explicit laws allowing the tenant to do this.
- khuey 5y agoYes, that's right. The landlord is required to seek a new tenant.
- e1g 5y agoUSA is a big place, but OP is talking about NYC specifically before COVID. At that time you were liable for the full amount until the end of the lease. Landlords could sit on empty boxes and sue you for the entire amount. Whether they want the hassle is up to them, but you couldn't compel them to do anything. It does sound unfair, but see here for supporting sources https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tenants-right-break-rental-lease-new-york.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tenants-right-break-...
- albedoa 5y agoYour own link says that NYC landlords are required to mitigate damages by seeking a new tenant.
- e1g 5y agoYes, as of July 2019, which is not the context of the OP discussion and why I said "at the time..."
- why_only_15 5y agoJuly 2019 was pre-covid?
- simonh 5y agoYes.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- conductr 5y agoThey could put an ad on Craigslist and deny all applicants or get non either way sought a new tenant.
- CydeWeys 5y agoAnd doing so would be illegal, and you could sue them for it (and win). It's pretty easy to determine if a landlord is actually trying to rent out a given apartment -- just have your friends apply.
- conductr 5y agoYour “pretty easy” sounds extremely onerous to me. If my friend said, “hey, apply for my old apartment so I can prove in court that my landlord is fielding/dodging applications.” I think I’d tell them, unkindly, to go F themself. (Yes, That’s how I talk to my friends, but also because I think it’s preposterous that that even asked.) Going into court you have no/low knowledge of what your landlord has actually done. If they pull out their ads they posted on the internet or on some zero readership newspaper. The judge will see they have made an effort and you probably are grasping at straws because you have nothing in the way of proof. If you’re lucky, judge would hear some expert testimony (realtor) that says the apartment/market/etc should have been filled within 1-2 months and they feel it’s highly unusual the unit would remain unfilled for 6 months. But even still, if the law says the landlord is required to market the property it might not imply they have to be good at marketing the property. So there’s a grey area where it could go either way, and he can proof that you can’t match.