OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE36
Added 2024-08-14 08:27:48 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE35 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs!
Comments
A, but from deduction. Escrow is an official process; if Tommy is paying into escrow, by definition he's allowed to. Therefore Larry has forfeited his right to get direct payments and can't evict on that basis. Maybe it's a trick question and Larry is actually trying to evict Tommy for failure to deliver/beach of contract or something. Maybe lease agreements are allowed to contain provisions for labor in place of rent and Tommy didn't do the work? However there's still the "BYO hot water" stuff which is obvs bullshit since the facts state Larry has to supply hot water. Also I'm guessing constructive eviction is like constructive dismissal where your work doesn't officially fire you, they just make your job unbearable and you quit. Which employers are not allowed to do. Since Larry wants to officially evict Tommy we know Tommy hasn't moved out so it's not constructive eviction. So, A.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-08-16 23:44:33 +0000 UTCAnswer A is correct in my book. It seems to me that a right to habitable place to live couldn't be something a landlord could just be like "eh I'm gonna write that out in the lease."
ToddTheOdd
2024-08-16 04:46:54 +0000 UTCIf it was possible to waive the warranty of habitability or assign responsibilities related to it to a tenant, landlords would do it all the time. Given the fact that I've never experienced anything like that, or ever heard of any of my friends going through anything like that, the answer can't be C or D. As for B, the fact pattern just doesn't look like a constructed eviction to me. It's not like Larry created the situation here to get rid of Tommy. They've been arguing about it since before the lease was even signed, the payment dispute was all Tommy's doing, and it's been half a year in the making since then. The answer must therefore be A. Well, the multiple choice answer, at least. I think the correct answer in a real world scenario would have been to never sign the lease in the first place.
William Yeske
2024-08-16 04:44:23 +0000 UTCI'm guessing A. I had personal experience dealing with a not-great landlord with a furnace that needed some repair. I wrote more up about it on reddit if it's of interest. From researching for that situation, I found out that the warrant of habitability cannot be waived, which my landlord tried to pull in the lease. That eliminates D, and makes C irrelevant. I think B could be true soon if it forces Tommy out but isn't true yet. That leaves A, which is true. For correctness of A, my only concern is whether you're allowed to put funds into escrow rather than just paying rent and seeking relief in court. But it does seem at least fair.
Apprentice57
2024-08-15 01:45:28 +0000 UTCI would like the answer to be A. Like Thomas, I’m inclined to believe that the implied warranty of habitability is something they can’t be waived. However, because it’s 2024 and the supreme court is determined to make this country as unjust as possible, the answer probably will be D.
Corey Helwig
2024-08-14 23:52:52 +0000 UTC
