Apartment suing for the $250 security deposit.

[Zigner]

The OP *received* services? Do tell.

The services per performed for the OP. That the OP refused to take those services is not so relevant.

Let's change the scenario a bit. OP stops at a pizza shop and orders a pizza, paying with a check. OP then gets a call from his buddy at the pizza joint across town saying that their pizzas are much better than the one he just ordered. OP then leaves the pizza shop and goes to eat across town. The next morning, OP puts a stop payment on the check. Would the original pizza shop not be entitled to the money?

ETA: Implied in the above is that the OP never actually received a pizza at the first shop.

 

[CIA]

One might argue that your position that no "services" were received would be fallacious. The apartment was made ready for their move-in based upon receipt of the deposit check. That is a service performed on their behalf.

no the unit was not move in ready at the time as they explained to us, but said it will be ready on the day of move in which was Friday 1st June.

 

[CIA]

The services per performed for the OP. That the OP refused to take those services is not so relevant.

Let's change the scenario a bit. OP stops at a pizza shop and orders a pizza, paying with a check. OP then gets a call from his buddy at the pizza joint across town saying that their pizzas are much better than the one he just ordered. OP then leaves the pizza shop and goes to eat across town. The next morning, OP puts a stop payment on the check. Would the original pizza shop not be entitled to the money?

ETA: Implied in the above is that the OP never actually received a pizza at the first shop.

sure because it's not the customers fault for finding a better 'deal'?

 

[Silverplum]

no the unit was not move in ready at the time as they explained to us, but said it will be ready on the day of move in which was Friday 1st June.

Yes.

And if it wasn't ready on the 28th, but was two days later on the 1st, what do you think happened in there??

 

[Silverplum]

sure because it's not the customers fault for finding a better 'deal'?

The time to do that is before one orders the pizza, or holds the apartment.

 

[Zigner]

sure because it's not the customers fault for finding a better 'deal'?

Exactly - you owe the money!

 

[CIA]

Yes.

And if it wasn't ready on the 28th, but was two days later on the 1st, what do you think happened in there??

they told me Friday it will be ready and Friday is the day they will be cleaning it out in the morning before move in.

 

[CIA]

The time to do that is before one orders the pizza, or holds the apartment.

LOL my check i can do whatever i want with it AFTER I give it to you and that includes cancelling it

 

[Silverplum]

LOL my check i can do whatever i want with it AFTER I give it to you and that includes cancelling it

Alrighty then.



(My LOL is for when you find out that your shoddy ethics can and will catch up with you. It's already begun, actually. )

 

[CIA]

alrighty then.



(my lol is for when you find out that your shoddy ethics can and will catch up with you. It's already begun, actually. )

smh!! Lol:d

 

[Silverplum]

smh!! Lol:d

What type of site is this? Legal.

Your "antics" are not funny here. Perhaps someone might find you amusing on some sort of momblog.

 

[tranquility]

The services per performed for the OP. That the OP refused to take those services is not so relevant.

Let's change the scenario a bit. OP stops at a pizza shop and orders a pizza, paying with a check. OP then gets a call from his buddy at the pizza joint across town saying that their pizzas are much better than the one he just ordered. OP then leaves the pizza shop and goes to eat across town. The next morning, OP puts a stop payment on the check. Would the original pizza shop not be entitled to the money?

ETA: Implied in the above is that the OP never actually received a pizza at the first shop.

That would be a simple contract. Not because of the check, but because of the ordering of the pizza.

Here, the check was a *deposit*. It was not for either goods or services.

 

[CIA]

What type of site is this? Legal.

Your "antics" are not funny here. Perhaps someone might find you amusing on some sort of momblog.

ah well, it's a shame you don't get it then ay?

 

[Zigner]

That would be a simple contract. Not because of the check, but because of the ordering of the pizza.

Oh, kind of like requesting the apartment be held and made ready for their move-in?

Here, the check was a *deposit*. It was not for either goods or services.

Except for the service of holding the apartment and making it ready for their move-in.

 

[tranquility]

As to the rest of the witty banter back and forth, if there was a verbal contract, the landlord was in breach as the unit was not ready. The only realistic claim is as I laid out in post 3. I think it is in the OP's best interest to negotiate what the landlord's damages are under quasi contract as there is some downside risk there. Sure, the landlord may be found to not be able to have "reasonably" relied on a tenant who he required to sign a lease before the signature is laid down. But, since the damages could be more than $250 if the court finds the landlord did reasonably rely and the fact future landlords hate to rent to people sued by landlords in the past, if no deal for less could be made, I'd pay it.

But not because of some silly notion that was the figure on a check given to pay for any damages to an apartment during tenancy.