7 ms·

Sounds like blackmail, exactly as suggested by the other comments.

antisthenes 3y ago
I'd say the way it sounds depends entirely on the prior relationship. ~ Good tenant - negotiation. ~ Bad tenant - extortion.
- frumper 3y ago
  If the landlord is wanting something that benefits them and conveys that to the tenets then it’s reasonable for the tenant to communicate their concerns and what would help the landlord get what they want.
wolverine876 3y ago
How is that blackmail? It seems like that would make every business deal blackmail.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think the difference is breaking contract. Few business deals can exist if you have unilateral renegotiation at any point.
  - mistercow 3y ago
    I think there’s also a psychological difference in the direction you’re asking the money to go. For purely rational agents, it might all be about expected value, but for humans, a tenant asking a landlord to pay them is likely to be seen as outrageous, particularly when the landlord hasn’t done anything wrong.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think it is less the direction and more the pre-existing contract. Nobody batts an eye if a tenant offers to fix the sink for $100. If the tenant offers not to break the sink for $100, that is entirely different.
- smsm42 3y ago
  The business deal was you pay rent, and when the contract ends you get out. Now you're changing the deal unilaterally and threatening to occupy somebody's property without contract and without paying, unless you're given additional payments. It's certainly not like every business deal.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed. in some jurisdictions this is even enforced by law. so they are not changing the deal unilaterally. in fact the landlord who wants the renter to move out is the one who is unilaterally changing the deal.
    - smsm42 3y ago
      > most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed What this expectation is based on? You can't just "expect" other people to act for your benefit. > in some jurisdictions this is even enforced by law These jurisdictions likely have constant problems with their rental market, unless it's captured by the state or similar entity. It would be very strange for a willing person to enter a contract which essentially deprives them of control of their property forever. > so they are not changing the deal unilaterally Yes they are, unless their rental contract specifies that they are entitled to rent this property forever. I have not seen any such contract so far. > in fact the landlord who wants the renter to move out is the one who is unilaterally changing the deal. Again, this is not true unless the contract specifically promises the renter that they are entitled to be renting forever - which usually is not the case, and I am not sure why would any landlord sign such contract and lose the control of their property forever.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        You can't just "expect" other people to act for your benefit. at least german law says otherwise. and see my other comment. i have never rented with an expectation to move out. It would be very strange for a willing person to enter a contract which essentially deprives them of control of their property forever. if the purpose of the property is to be rented out then what more control do you need? you can terminate a lease if they fail to pay rent or destroy your property, or if you need it for your own family. but why would you want to terminate a lease otherwise? to raise the rent for the next tenant? that's just greed. unless their rental contract specifies that they are entitled to rent this property forever. I have not seen any such contract so far. in germany such contracts are the law. no other form of contract is valid unless it is a short term rental for a vacation home or something like that. I am not sure why would any landlord sign such contract and lose the control of their property welcome to germany.

I'd say the way it sounds depends entirely on the prior relationship. ~ Good tenant - negotiation. ~ Bad tenant - extortion.

frumper 3y ago
If the landlord is wanting something that benefits them and conveys that to the tenets then it’s reasonable for the tenant to communicate their concerns and what would help the landlord get what they want.

wolverine876 3y ago

How is that blackmail? It seems like that would make every business deal blackmail.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think the difference is breaking contract. Few business deals can exist if you have unilateral renegotiation at any point.
- mistercow 3y ago
  I think there’s also a psychological difference in the direction you’re asking the money to go. For purely rational agents, it might all be about expected value, but for humans, a tenant asking a landlord to pay them is likely to be seen as outrageous, particularly when the landlord hasn’t done anything wrong.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think it is less the direction and more the pre-existing contract. Nobody batts an eye if a tenant offers to fix the sink for $100. If the tenant offers not to break the sink for $100, that is entirely different.
smsm42 3y ago
The business deal was you pay rent, and when the contract ends you get out. Now you're changing the deal unilaterally and threatening to occupy somebody's property without contract and without paying, unless you're given additional payments. It's certainly not like every business deal.
- em-bee 3y ago
  most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed. in some jurisdictions this is even enforced by law. so they are not changing the deal unilaterally. in fact the landlord who wants the renter to move out is the one who is unilaterally changing the deal.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    > most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed What this expectation is based on? You can't just "expect" other people to act for your benefit. > in some jurisdictions this is even enforced by law These jurisdictions likely have constant problems with their rental market, unless it's captured by the state or similar entity. It would be very strange for a willing person to enter a contract which essentially deprives them of control of their property forever. > so they are not changing the deal unilaterally Yes they are, unless their rental contract specifies that they are entitled to rent this property forever. I have not seen any such contract so far. > in fact the landlord who wants the renter to move out is the one who is unilaterally changing the deal. Again, this is not true unless the contract specifically promises the renter that they are entitled to be renting forever - which usually is not the case, and I am not sure why would any landlord sign such contract and lose the control of their property forever.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      You can't just "expect" other people to act for your benefit. at least german law says otherwise. and see my other comment. i have never rented with an expectation to move out. It would be very strange for a willing person to enter a contract which essentially deprives them of control of their property forever. if the purpose of the property is to be rented out then what more control do you need? you can terminate a lease if they fail to pay rent or destroy your property, or if you need it for your own family. but why would you want to terminate a lease otherwise? to raise the rent for the next tenant? that's just greed. unless their rental contract specifies that they are entitled to rent this property forever. I have not seen any such contract so far. in germany such contracts are the law. no other form of contract is valid unless it is a short term rental for a vacation home or something like that. I am not sure why would any landlord sign such contract and lose the control of their property welcome to germany.