3 ms·
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 te
by 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 agoMost 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.