Recently, a friend of mine signed a two year rental agreement with a small mom and pop rental place. At the time of signing, they offered credit cards as a way of paying, but a credit card is not explicitly mentioned in the contract as a method of payment. However, three months ago, they notified my friend that they are no longer accepting credit cards as a payment method for rent (their processor changed rules or something). They switched entirely to ACH drafts only.
However, my friend doesn't want to use ACH drafts as he already authorized them to charge his credit card. And he refuses to give them his ACH information, despite repeated notifications from the landlords.
He claims that they stopped collecting rent, not that he stopped paying it.
This brought into my mind some very interesting financial and legal questions.
His entire premise is:
- He entered into a contract to pay because he liked the payment methods offered
- That payment method is still authorized, but the company no longer accepts it
- Therefore he authorized a payment, but the company isn't collecting
- Therefore he is off the hook for repayment AND doesn't need to add a new method of payment
My question is:
- Is the onus for repayment on the lessor or the lessee? aka Is a lessee required to repay a lessor in a manner the lessor accepts? Or must a lessor accept any payment method from the lessee?
- Is not liking the payment methods accepted a valid reason to expect to be let out of a lease contract?
I feel like my friend is in the wrong here, but I'd love case law or US law examples to prove that he still owes the money!