4 ms·
No, he didn't. But he did do some damage. That's the nature of property, the more it's used, the more damage it accrues. By having "extra" people in the apartme
by maratd 14y ago
No, he didn't. But he did do some damage. That's the nature of property, the more it's used, the more damage it accrues. By having "extra" people in the apartment, the property was being depreciated at a greater rate without compensation to the landlord.
- pyre 14y agoI'm unsure that this makes sense. If he had picked up a roommate instead of renting on ABnB, the landlord wouldn't have gotten more money, yet there would more 'more people' causing 'more damage.'
- mseebach 14y agoGenerally, the shorter time you're staying for, the less invested in the property and community you are. For an example, a guest will on average think less of making noise when coming in late than a tenant who will be having a longer term relationship with the neighbours.
- pyre 14y agoPersonally, I've never known anyone that would treat a place poorly just due to a short stay. The people I know that would treat a place poorly are people would do so on a long or short stay.
- bmelton 14y agoTo that point, I wouldn't think it matters in any appreciable way. The lessee is still responsible for those damages whether or not he was renting the room, so the landlord has a path for recompense in the event that any portions of the place are damaged to the point of requiring rumuneration.
- maratd 14y ago> to the point of requiring rumuneration. And that's the key. I have never met a landlord who demanded compensation from regular wear and tear. Not for the appliances, floors, walls, etc. I wasn't talking about holes in walls. I was talking about the general wear and tear that the landlord would never be compensated for. In the end, he would have to replace appliances out of his own pocket at a faster rate, etc.