32 ms·

Breach of contract is generally considered a "big deal" by most lawyers and judges.

fennecfoxen 14y ago
Yeah... this is why the San Francisco rental market is a joke. I'm pretty sure the standard SFAA lease is more or less designed to be broken, so that the landlord can toss you out if he needs to (because otherwise the inane rent board regulations would keep him from doing so even in a legitimate situation). On top of that you have landlords who tell you "oh, such and such won't be a problem" even though it says in the lease that it's a problem and that the lease comprises the whole of the agreement. (cough hi, J Warvro and Associates, it's me again cough) And no one wants to modify it because it's too legally risky. </semi-topical-rant>
- simoncion 14y ago
  How would modifying the SFAA lease be legally risky? In the absence of a written lease, the obligations of a tenant to the landlord are to not cause damage to the landlord's property -beyond ordinary wear and tear-, to pay the landlord the agreed-upon rent in a timely manner, and to not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of others tenants in the building. A landlord's obligation to his tenants are to provide a place that's fit for habitation (There are some things like a functional phone jack in definition of that), ensure that any hazards that may be caused by damage to the building are rectified in a timely manner, and to address any tenant's complaints regarding those two items. A written lease will generally only add restrictions on one or both parties. Unless explicitly changed by the terms of a written lease both parties are required to live up to the basic obligations that they would be held to in the absence of a written leasing agreement. (And even then, there are certain obligations that a landlord cannot free himself from.) Edit: Replaced "waive" with "free himself from" in last paragraph. "waive" wasn't the right word to use.
  - fennecfoxen 14y ago
    In San Francisco, the Rent Board places additional obligations on the landlord and declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable. (For instance, a recent example: if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board.) The SFAA lease contains things that are... battle-tested. If you're a tenant, it's not your problem, but if you're a landlord, you probably don't want to be one of those guys who ends up with a tenant that's impossible to get rid of, stays in the apartment forever, and pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else (which you can't).
    - simoncion 14y ago
      You're right. The SF Rent Board does add some rules to try to ensure that a landlord can't evict a tenant simply because he's insufficiently profitable. But, from my POV, those are obligations that a landlord has to the local government. "if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board." Do you have a citation for this? The only possibly relevant section that three minutes of searching turned up was 37.3(c) "Initial Rent Limit for Subtenants". "[The] Rent Board ... declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable." Law at all levels is more like quicksand than bedrock. At least the Rent Board has a consistent and public agenda. Do the Rent Board's actions make more sense to you if you view them as a Renters' advocacy group? "If you're a landlord, you probably don't want to ... [end] up with a tenant that ... pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else." Is this the meat of the "legal risk" that you were talking about earlier? If so, you're not talking about legal risk; you're talking about limiting earning potential. For something like forty years it's been the position of the SF Rent Board that the renters of San Francisco should be able to find, secure, and retain affordable housing whose rental rates more-or-less track the -actual- increases of costs to the landlords who rent out the space. If you do even the smallest bit of research before you decide to become a landlord, you'll discover that the city will make it hard for you to throw people out of their homes simply because they aren't making enough money for you. What's more, you'll discover that things have been this way for decades.

Yeah... this is why the San Francisco rental market is a joke. I'm pretty sure the standard SFAA lease is more or less designed to be broken, so that the landlord can toss you out if he needs to (because otherwise the inane rent board regulations would keep him from doing so even in a legitimate situation). On top of that you have landlords who tell you "oh, such and such won't be a problem" even though it says in the lease that it's a problem and that the lease comprises the whole of the agreement. (cough hi, J Warvro and Associates, it's me again cough) And no one wants to modify it because it's too legally risky. </semi-topical-rant>

simoncion 14y ago
How would modifying the SFAA lease be legally risky? In the absence of a written lease, the obligations of a tenant to the landlord are to not cause damage to the landlord's property -beyond ordinary wear and tear-, to pay the landlord the agreed-upon rent in a timely manner, and to not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of others tenants in the building. A landlord's obligation to his tenants are to provide a place that's fit for habitation (There are some things like a functional phone jack in definition of that), ensure that any hazards that may be caused by damage to the building are rectified in a timely manner, and to address any tenant's complaints regarding those two items. A written lease will generally only add restrictions on one or both parties. Unless explicitly changed by the terms of a written lease both parties are required to live up to the basic obligations that they would be held to in the absence of a written leasing agreement. (And even then, there are certain obligations that a landlord cannot free himself from.) Edit: Replaced "waive" with "free himself from" in last paragraph. "waive" wasn't the right word to use.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  In San Francisco, the Rent Board places additional obligations on the landlord and declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable. (For instance, a recent example: if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board.) The SFAA lease contains things that are... battle-tested. If you're a tenant, it's not your problem, but if you're a landlord, you probably don't want to be one of those guys who ends up with a tenant that's impossible to get rid of, stays in the apartment forever, and pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else (which you can't).
  - simoncion 14y ago
    You're right. The SF Rent Board does add some rules to try to ensure that a landlord can't evict a tenant simply because he's insufficiently profitable. But, from my POV, those are obligations that a landlord has to the local government. "if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board." Do you have a citation for this? The only possibly relevant section that three minutes of searching turned up was 37.3(c) "Initial Rent Limit for Subtenants". "[The] Rent Board ... declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable." Law at all levels is more like quicksand than bedrock. At least the Rent Board has a consistent and public agenda. Do the Rent Board's actions make more sense to you if you view them as a Renters' advocacy group? "If you're a landlord, you probably don't want to ... [end] up with a tenant that ... pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else." Is this the meat of the "legal risk" that you were talking about earlier? If so, you're not talking about legal risk; you're talking about limiting earning potential. For something like forty years it's been the position of the SF Rent Board that the renters of San Francisco should be able to find, secure, and retain affordable housing whose rental rates more-or-less track the -actual- increases of costs to the landlords who rent out the space. If you do even the smallest bit of research before you decide to become a landlord, you'll discover that the city will make it hard for you to throw people out of their homes simply because they aren't making enough money for you. What's more, you'll discover that things have been this way for decades.