3 ms·

If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone

by em-bee 3y ago

If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. ok, putting it explicit like that i kind of agree. but i don't see the example from the story in that way. the tenant had a clear expectation that they could stay, and the landlord knew that. they got blindsided by the landlord wanting them to move out because regardless of the actual contract they signed, the tenant clearly wasn't in the position to be able to simply move. situations like this are the reason why this is actually illegal in germany. being forced to move always creates a hardship for the tenant, and the laws are made to protect against that.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in. I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord. You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in. Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.
- em-bee 3y ago
  actually, i am not assuming that anyone is malicious here, and i am observing that even without anyone being at fault, the lack of tenant protection puts the tenant at a disadvantage. and that disadvantage is what i intended to address. if a tenant is malicious then none of this discussion is even relevant, because we no longer need to consider the expectations of the tenant. if they damaged the property, sue them to get them to pay for the fix, or do whatever you need to make the problem go away. but if they are just a harmless nuisance, well then, tough luck. until the landlord provides a good reason for the eviction, i'll side with the tenant. have you had to find an apartment to rent on short notice before? two months is not enough. i'd need half a year.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Most tenants are judgement proof, so there is no legal remedy. That is to say, there is no legal recourse and compensation avenue available. landlords are lucky if they can get possession of their property back intact. However, I agree that this is a distinct topic than no-cause eviction. The two intersect in that cash for keys is a common remedy for both situations. I think there are valid practical arguments that can be made for legally barring no-cause evictions or extending notice. The main point I was attempting to debate was the reasonableness of demanding cash-for-keys under a legal framework that explicitly allows no-cause eviction, and both parties have contractually agreed to no-fault eviction (and no-fault move out). This is largely because I believe in honoring my commitments, even if I could profit through breaking them or lying.

by em-bee 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in. I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord. You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in. Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.

em-bee 3y ago
actually, i am not assuming that anyone is malicious here, and i am observing that even without anyone being at fault, the lack of tenant protection puts the tenant at a disadvantage. and that disadvantage is what i intended to address. if a tenant is malicious then none of this discussion is even relevant, because we no longer need to consider the expectations of the tenant. if they damaged the property, sue them to get them to pay for the fix, or do whatever you need to make the problem go away. but if they are just a harmless nuisance, well then, tough luck. until the landlord provides a good reason for the eviction, i'll side with the tenant. have you had to find an apartment to rent on short notice before? two months is not enough. i'd need half a year.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Most tenants are judgement proof, so there is no legal remedy. That is to say, there is no legal recourse and compensation avenue available. landlords are lucky if they can get possession of their property back intact. However, I agree that this is a distinct topic than no-cause eviction. The two intersect in that cash for keys is a common remedy for both situations. I think there are valid practical arguments that can be made for legally barring no-cause evictions or extending notice. The main point I was attempting to debate was the reasonableness of demanding cash-for-keys under a legal framework that explicitly allows no-cause eviction, and both parties have contractually agreed to no-fault eviction (and no-fault move out). This is largely because I believe in honoring my commitments, even if I could profit through breaking them or lying.