Legal rights of the tenant
1. To have the house in the right shape- In this case, there was a breach of this right where the property owner does not do anything possible to make sure that the tenant gets the house to be in the good shape. The roof keeps on leaking, and all that the landlord does is to mere give empty promises that he is seen not to deliver at all to the tenant (Miceli, 1997). Each time Roger calls Larry to inform him about the leak that is in the roof, all that the landlord states is that he will make sure the issue is sorted out, but then nothing is done to try and solve the situation that is at hand as such. This is indeed a show that the property owner has been in breach of the tenant’s right to access his house in the good shape as such. The tenant simply has the right to have a house that is in a good way and this is something that the property owner is fully aware of.
2. To make sure that he follows the conditions of the contract- From the scenario it can be seen that Larry who is the property owner, in this case, does not respect the conditions that do come along with the contract. It must not have been an express condition or warranty but rather a fact that Roger had signed the contract on the basis that the house was fully fine and had no leakage completely. The proposed tenant before getting to contract with the landlord specifically asked if the house had any leakages and in return the owner also stated that there was no need to panic as he had never heard of any form of leakages taking place in his apartment even with the previous tenants (Miceli, 1997). It is by this assurance that Roger gets more interested in getting into a contract with the property owner. Immediately after the agreement was put into place, he realizes that the whole deal was just a mere lie and that the house leaks so much. To try to salvage the situation, he gets to call the landlord but then he keeps on lying that he will solve the case when it is seen in the long run that it was also another lie too. The contract could have been rescinded even in the first instance that it was realized that this was all a lie but then the parties show their commitment and still the landlord does not complete his fundamental part of the contract as such.
Legal rights of the landlord
The landlord has the right for the house to be maintained properly by the tenant of the house. The tenant must always be aware of the fact that he should try as much as possible to have the house in the right shape just as he had found it. This means that the tenant should ensure that he does not break anything in the house. He needs to ensure that all the apparatus in the house remain as he had found them and if they depreciate, then they should be at a reasonable percentage.
In this case the tenant gets angry, throws a baseball bat at the drywall, which takes to damage the drywall and a socket that was attached to the wall too. This is something that the tenant is fully aware he should not do at all costs, and when he does this, then he will be the one to incur the costs to try to solve such a problem as such (Cunningham et al., 1993). The law expects that when a tenant and the property owner get a contract, they need to make sure that they do get to respect all the terms of the contract. They do know very well that the landlord will only be responsible in as far as the damages only involve that which was caused by nature or by poor construction of the said house Rose, C. M. (1988). Crystals and mud in property law. Stanford Law Review, 577-610.
. Therefore, for such a break it will remain to be the duty of the tenant to make sure that he repairs it since it was as a result of the negligence of that said tenant as well. This right will always suffice in the business world because landlords have made sure that before any tenant gets to a house they ensure that they make all the necessary repairs such that in the event a tenant breaks anything in the house then he will be liable for the said repairs that are to be done since they were done beyond his control. The case of repairing the roof would probably fall on the landlord, but then it will be more than unfair for the same landlord to be made to suffer for the mistakes that had been committed by his tenant all in the name of he was angry on the material day when he broke the socket and the wall.
The duty of the property owner to mitigate damages
The proprietor, in this case, had the duty to try to make sure that he reduces the damages that he suffers. He had been aware of the injury that he had already subjected the tenant to yet he was still wasting more time (Cunningham et al., 1993). If he would have repaired the house, then the most likely thing is that the tenant would not have also broken the wall and the socket in the house. It is also quite understandable that the tenant could have got angry and did what he did. This is something that the property owner would have only avoided by just repairing the roof all through the times that he was being called by the tenant. It was just as simple as making the roof repairs and avoids the injury that the tenant later on caused as a result of getting angry. He had this simple option but then he got to mess up with it; it had been his obligation to make sure that the roof was repaired since even from the start he had lied to the tenant. It is even more excusable that the tenant had broken the wall and the socket all because he was tired of the excuses and the manner in which the property owner talked back. To mitigate the damages, he would have simply just opted to make sure that he speaks well to the tenant when he was called in the first instance but then as a result of the plain talk that he came up with he makes the tenant angry leading in the damages that came up later on.
Determine whether or not Larry has legal grounds to evict Roger
Larry has got no legal grounds to evict Roger because he had been the one at fault from the onset of the whole issue. He does not do everything possible to make sure that he does not suffer the said injury that he later on claims. It is seen that the tenant had reported to him severally regarding the problem he had been facing at home; but then the property owner does nothing to salvage the situation (Miceli, 1997). What needs to be noted is that he who seeks equity must do equity in turn; in this case, the property owner would like equity to work for him but then when he was expected to perform his side he was ignorant of the same. Therefore, the court will not be open to seeing such an injustice get to take place as well. Regarding this it will be impossible to state that the landlord has got any ground to evict the tenant from the house.
Describe whether or not Roger has a legal obligation to pay for the damage he caused and determined whether or not Larry would be liable for any direct harm.
Roger has a defense for the damage that he caused to the house; the simple reason that the damage was caused by the provocation for which the property owner was a party to is sufficient reason to withdraw him from any form of harm as such. He will not be subject to any payment of damages at all when indeed the destruction was brought up by the short talk of the property owner.
Concerning the property owner, he will be liable to pay up for the damages caused by the tenant. He had been informed about the issue at hand but was very reluctant from the onset to solve the problem. As a property owner, he has the duty to make sure that his property is in the right condition to be occupied by the tenants (Rose, 1988).
Cunningham, R. A., Stoebuck, W. B., & Whitman, D. A. (1993). The law of property. West Group.
Miceli, T. J. (1997). Economics of the law: Torts, contracts, property, litigation. OUP Catalogue.
Rose, C. M. (1988). Crystals and mud in property law. Stanford Law Review, 577-610.
Get a verified expert to help you with any urgent paper!Hire a Writer
from $10 per-page