The tenant did not have to be told. All the tenant had to do was spend a little time in the apartment.
yeah, they would have had to tell her if they want to blame the previous tenant.
Did the allergic tenant have a contract to be provided with an allergen / histamine free room?
And if she did, how does that contract bind the previous tenant?
It doesn't.
The hotel CHOSE to incur an expense to they did not have to, to HUMOR a guest who stayed in the room
months later.
The were not under any obligation to special clean the room on account of the new tenants allergies. That is her problem.
They could have said "Take a claritin ma'am."
The remedies they had were available ONLY when the cat was discovered.
When the hotel had the cat removed, the cat was gone and then continued to rent and did not impose a charge, they had deferred and accepted the matter as closed.
My point with the peanut butter parallel is quite simple.
Is the presence of trace allergens left by a previous tenant / tenants actions damage?
How many parts per million? Billion?