Question about windows installed by landlord

[Zigner]

You have no idea what you are talking about
What exactly is a Superior Court Judge in California going to do within the law that would be a favorable remedy his problem?

It depends on (many) facts that we don't have.
Based on what we've been told, what laws do you think have been violated?

 

[P1776]

It depends on (many) facts that we don't have.
Based on what we've been told, what laws do you think have been violated?

what other facts do you need to know.
A landlord in California does not have to provide AC

 

[Zigner]

.A landlord in California does not have to provide AC

Nice flipflop.

 

[P1776]

Nice flipflop.

Its the same position, ,just less words for simple minds

 

[Zigner]

Its the same position, ,just less words for simple minds

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps your earlier post was misstated?

good point, but the end is the same. If he provided an amenity after they moved, and they continued to pay rent then its the same as having it when they moved in.

He is without AC and cant do nothing about it

In your post that I quoted here, you state that the LL, by providing an AC after move-in, must continue to provide it, the same as if it had been provided at move-in. That is not (necessarily) true.

You also state that "He is without AC and cant do nothing about it". That is a double negative, and is false. Doing nothing is certainly one of the options that the OP has.

 

[P1776]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps your earlier post was misstated?



In your post that I quoted here, you state that the LL, by providing an AC after move-in, must continue to provide it, the same as if it had been provided at move-in. That is not (necessarily) true.

You also state that "He is without AC and cant do nothing about it". That is a double negative, and is false. Doing nothing is certainly one of the options that the OP has.

My original post and follow up comments summed it up, but i will simplify it for you.
In California, he could try to make an argument that the landlord provided an amenity that was a condition of his lease (expressed or implied) and that he should continue to provide AC under this condition. However, CA law DOES NOT REQUIRE AC as a habitability issue.
Therefore, it's my assessment that a judge would not require new AC units to be installed under these circumstances

 

[Zigner]

My original post and follow up comments summed it up, but i will simplify it for you.
In California, he could try to make an argument that the landlord provided an amenity that was a condition of his lease (expressed or implied) and that he should continue to provide AC under this condition. However, CA law DOES NOT REQUIRE AC as a habitability issue.
Therefore, it's my assessment that a judge would not require new AC units to be installed under these circumstances

It's not a matter of simplification, it's a matter of clarity. You said one thing, I called you on it, then you said the opposite. Now you are sticking with your new position, and I agree with your new position.