Thats Life in the Big City Essay Example for Free

Thats Life in the Big City Essay An implied warranty of habitability is a warranty set forth by law in respect to all residential leases in a way to ensure that the premises are fit and conducive for human habitation. In addition the warranty is aimed at ensuring that the condition of the premise remains fit and habitable throughout the duration of the lease. The landlord- tenant law in regard to warranty of habitability is very useful because it imposes certain duties that are supposed to be adhered to by the two parties. Such obligations on the part of the landlord include maintenance of the premises in habitable conditions such as providing adequate weather proofing, available heat, water, electricity, and clean sanitary condition (Bright Gilbert, 1995). If these conditions are not met the tenant can seek for legal intervention justification as defined by the tenant defensive act. Even though there are no definite rules regarding to how the landlord was supposed to carry out the maintenance, the landlord should have been responsible for repair of any defects in the rental unit and comply with state and local building health regulations. Being a residential lease between a landlord and a tenant the landlord should have ensured that the he leased property is fit to live in. This means that the leased property should be safe and sanitary for other human being and also to the people who are leaving in that premise. The conditions that violate the implied warranty of habitability vary depending on the nature of the violation and the cause of the violation. In this case, the landlord had violated the implied warranty of habitability by failing to provide timely repair on faulty air conditioning and heating system. As required by the law, when a tenant identifies existence of uninhabitable conditions he is supposed to notify the landlord in time an act which Bill and Ted did. However, the problem comes in the part failure of the landlord to carry out these repairs in time. Therefore it was unreasonable for the landlord to take more than one month to repair the defect. In this case, the landlord did not put into consideration the uninhabitable conditions a factor which could have necessitated for specific actions to be taken by the tenants. For example the tenants can decide to move out and terminate the lease or repair and deduct the cost incurred in the process of repairing the inhabitable conditions from their rent (Koster, 2006). The tenant can also decide to sue for the damages or either sues to force the landlord make the repairs. Therefore landlords should consider the importance of the warranty of habitability and its application to its property. Since Bill and Ted have rented an apartment and they have paid the landlord a security deposit, the landlord should take up any issues responding to the property management and ensure that Bill and Ted are living well under his property. Any issue that arises as a result of the property management should be regarded considered with urgency and possible measures be carried out. In this case, the landlord does not play his role in property management and he fails to take any meaningful measures or either look upon complains of these tenants in time. Since Bill and Ted had notified the landlord and the superintendent had assured them of a timely repair, they had every reason to believe his word. However, the repair took more than necessary time. The landlord should have compensated them for the disturbances the incurred when they moved out yet they had paid for the apartment. The landlord portrays neglect on his part since he knew that the weather was worsening yet he failed to provide fans for them. In essence the landlord never responded to their request. This is seen when the temperatures fell and the water boiler broke down as well as the pipes froze and the two were left without water. Therefore, according to the warranty of habitability, the rental property is supposed to be safe on the dwelling for human beings. In such a case Bill and Ted should file for a breach of implied warranty of habitability. In case of the uninhabitable conditions such as the one that Bill and Ted faced, after the landlord has been notified immediately about the uninhabitable condition, it is the responsibility of the landlord to respond by making changes within the next thirty days or within a reasonable time given to him depending on the nature of defect. As for Ted and Bill, if the landlord does not respond to the changes of the uninhabitable conditions then they are allowed to move out and terminate the lease. This is because the landlord is unable to make the repairs within a reasonable time. They have a liberty of deciding to move out and terminate the lease. They are also allowed to repair and deduct there repair cost from the next months rent but they should consider on the amount it would cost (Nandorf Nassif, 2008). This is possible especially when the damaged property would not cost much to repair compared to the house rent. Therefore, before the tenant repairs the damages considering the value and the cost of repairing s very important, the tents might also decide to move out the house and terminate the lease. In either case the tenants may also decide to sue the landlord for the damages from the date of the landlord’s acknowledged of the poor condition. They can also decide to sue and force the landlord to make repairs through a court order which would force the landlord to make the repairs. Even though the court is capable of utilizing this option, it is an expensive task because it requires court supervision to ensure the repairs are carried out. The implied warranty of habitability cannot be waived and since the landlord was notified about the extent of the uninhabitable condition on the rented house and no action were taken immediately. Therefore, Bill and Ted should take immediate actions on the landlord’s inactivity. A legal action against the landlord is one of the remedial actions that the tenants should which would see him compelled by the court to repair the damages that have occurred. In summary, Bill and Ted may decide to sue for the damages incurred since the day that the landlord was notified about the breach of warranty of habitability. This is on the basis that the inhabitable condition reduces the value and comfort of the rented premises on fair market rental values. Since the landlord has not responded to the issues regarding the damages from the tenants, the tenants may also consider repairing and deducting the cost from the next month’s rent.This is one of the easiest methods because the landlord had overlooked the duty of repairing the damaged property. References Bright, S and Gilbert, G. (1995). Landlord and Tenant Law: The nature of Tenancies. Oxford: Clarendron press Koster, K. (2006). The Landlord- Tenant Law: General obligations of Landlords and Tenants. Retrieved on 9 July 2010 from http://ago. mo. gov/publications/landlordtenant. htm Nondorf, K and Nassif, T (2008). Tenant Remedies. Retrieved on 9 July 2010 from http://images. jw. com/com/publications/963. pdf