Timeline for Who owns the washing machine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2020 at 11:34 | vote | accept | conman | ||
| Mar 27, 2020 at 10:02 | comment | added | einpoklum | Can't it be argued that the owner "gave up" on the new washer by refusing to pay for the replacement? | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 17:54 | comment | added | conman | @maxathousand Indeed, I actually left a new (but cheap) washer/dryer behind because it was a cross state move and I was happy to have one less thing to move. However I would have brought mine if none was included with the house. Again though - I'm not planning on going to court over this - just curious how these things look from a legal perspective | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 15:11 | comment | added | maxathousand | @Graham That's also how I saw it. IANAL, but it seems like this arrangement was agreed to under false pretenses. The washer did not "break" and require fixing by the tenant—it was never in working order, so might as well have not come with a washer included at all. Agreeing to return a borrowed friend's truck in good condition doesn't hold you accountable for repairs if the truck is already totaled. | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 14:35 | comment | added | Graham | Similarly, the tenant could insist that the owner pays because provision of an initially-working washing machine was part of the tenancy agreement, and the tenant would not have taken the tenancy if they had known there wasn't a working washing machine. As you say though, this does not affect ownership. | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 13:55 | comment | added | Greendrake | @sleske I'd prefer to see that as a separate answer. Answers in addition are fine here. | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 13:32 | comment | added | sleske | Good answer. One addition for completeness: If there was an (implicit) agreement when the tenant paid the deductible, that would change matters. E.g. if tenant agreed to pay in exchange for being assured use of the machine. Tenant might claim such an agreement after the fact, then courts would have to weigh the evidence to decide. Mind if I propose an edit? | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 13:17 | comment | added | conman | So perhaps the way to look at it is that I paid to have it fixed, but fixing it just happened to require replacement? That seems plausible.... | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 12:06 | comment | added | conman | Either way someone who puts a clause like that in a lease is just crazy... | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 12:06 | comment | added | conman | This is not the first time I lived in a house with this clause in the lease. A more ridiculous one I saw once (and did not move into) was a house that had a detached barn/garage that was "allowed for use" but not covered under the lease. That was a deal breaker for me because it was big and took up a ton of space on the property, but I figured it would be useless. If I stored stuff in it and it burned down, would my renter's insurance cover the loss? If my kids were playing in it and the roof collapsed to neglect, could the owner refuse liability? | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 5:00 | history | edited | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 515 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2020 at 4:11 | history | answered | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |