Property Law Case Analysis: MGMT 1601 Business Law Assignment 1

This document provides an analysis of four business law cases pertaining to property law, focusing on the Residential Tenancy Act. The first case examines non-payment of rent and landlord's rights regarding eviction and notice periods. The second case discusses tenant and landlord responsibilities concerning property cleanliness, damage repair, and financial liabilities. The third case analyzes liability for a fire caused by a faulty heater. The final case addresses a landlord's responsibility for repairing a broken window and heating system. The analysis cites relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act and related legal principles, offering insights into the legal obligations and rights of both landlords and tenants. References to academic sources are included.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW 1
Business Law
Student’s (Name)
Institution

BUSINESS LAW 2
CASE 1
In the following case of Melissa vs David, there is non-payment of rent as per section 59
of Residential Tenancy Act, section 21 of the same act that talks on the landlord withholding his
services can also be applied. Section 21 states that the landlord can withhold any of the services
that he is offering such as maintenance services and food giving the landlord a right to reservice
the rental space without any threats as per section 23.
Melissa’s rights
Melissa has the rights to evict David as provided by section 21 of this act (Residential
Tenancy Act, 2006). This will be done after the court has agreed to this eviction or after Melissa
has given the couple a letter of notice that will notify them of the end of their tenancy period due
to their lack of paying the rent. This notice should clearly show the amount that they are
supposed to give Melissa and any amount that they are required to pay if they would want to
continue staying in the room.
Expected results
As per the provisions of the tenant act it is expected that David and the family will
undergo eviction unless they comply to the notice that they will receive form Melisa within a
period of 2 weeks (14 days), refusing to comply to the notice will be a breach in the tenancy
agreement that is addressed in section 29 of the Residential Tenancy Act 2006 (Smith et al.
2007).

BUSINESS LAW 3
CASE 2
Mr. Justine (the tenant) has the responsibility of ensuring the cleanliness of the property
that he has found according to section 33 of part four that states that the tenant is responsible for
the cleanliness of the rental unit (Shipley and Parsons, 2006).
He is also responsible for the repair or damage that he causes as per section 34 of part
four that states that the tenant is responsible for the repair of the damage committed and any
replacement due to negligence of the on his side.
Mr. Bob who is the landlord has the mandate to safeguard the rental unit property as per
section 20 of part three that articulates the responsibility of landlords, it states that the landlord
should provide and maintain the residential complex as the required housing standards, he is also
in charge of the repairs in the rental unit.
The landlord should include the terms of the repair in the tenancy agreement so that once
the event of damage the tenant is aware of how to deal with the situation (Gazdar and Mallah,
2010).
In this case Mr. Bob is not liable to retain $1324.21 unless this is the total cost that is
required in repairing all the damages (which in this it is not). Mr. Bob should only take the $
1,185 considering that the properties in question have taken two years since they were acquired
showing that they have already reduce in terms of value (Smyth, Soberman and Easson, 1968).
Mr. Bob should consider the nature of the damage in terms of its current value in the
market, the amount required to replace the damaged properties, reasonable out of pocket
expenses that will incur during the period of repair and the wear and tear that it might have
underwent as per section 30 sub section 5. Mr Justine who is the tenant might also decide to take
the carpet for washing or any other option instead of replacing a new one if the Board realizes

BUSINESS LAW 4
that its condition has not greately changed to the extent that it will require replacement (Fleming,
2015).
CASE 3
In this case, Sophia who is the landlord, is responsible for the fire though the tenant could
slightly have been involved in the fire. She is responsible because of the following reasons:
Sophia’s heater cover that first caught fire was in the wrong position that led to the
propagation of the whole fire that consumed the rental unit. In dealing with fire and its
equipment’s it is always advisable that other flammable equipment’s be kept away from the
fireplace, but this is exactly what she did.
Secondly the fact that the heater over heated could shows that there were problems with
the power supply or the power equipment leading to the overheating, in this generation there are
a lot of equipment’s that could have stopped the heater for overheating but the fact that it still
happened shows negligence on the side of the landlord (Sophia).
On the side of the tenant, he cannot be blamed for using the resources that were provided
without being aware of the heater cover that ended up propagating the fire, on the other hand he
contributed to using the heater extremely to the extent it started overheating.
In terms of compensation if it was to happen the landlord should be the one to
compensate the tenant considering that Sophia has greatly contributed to the fire, I am positive
that even the Board would declare the landlord responsible as per the reasons that have been give
above.

BUSINESS LAW 5
CASE 4
In this case I (the landlord) will be in charge of repairing the broken window and the
heating system due to the fact the tenant found it that way moreover, he informed me of the
problems more than one time. According to section 20 subsection one I am supposed to ensure
that the rental unit is in the best condition in terms of maintenance, provision of repair, adherence
to health standards and maintenance and house standards (Pippen, 2009).
I should also repair considering that, the tenant has not breached any condition that has
been provided in section 34 that dictates the reasons that should make the tenant to undertake
repair. As per the provisions of this law before moving to the house the tenant and I should
inspect the rental unit, in this case there were damages that I was to repair but I still had not
which means I am responsible.

BUSINESS LAW 6
Reference
Alberta (2017, December 15) Residential Tenancies Act. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/R17P1.pdf
Fleming, J. (2015). Residential tenancies in Ontario. LexisNexis Canada.
Gazdar, H., & Mallah, H. B. (2010). Residential Security as Social Protection. IDS
Bulletin, 41(4), 42-51.
Pippen, D. (2009). Security of tenure: tenancy law reform [Paper in: Housing.]. Reform, (94), 20.
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17
Shipley, R., Utz, S., & Parsons, M. (2006). Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business of
building renovation in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(6),
505-520.
Smith, S., Forbes-Mewett, H., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G., & Sawir, E. (2007,
October). The Right to Adequate Housing in the Context of International Education.
In Australian International Educational Conference. www. idp. com/aiec.

BUSINESS LAW 7
Smyth, J. E., Soberman, D. A., & Easson, A. J. (1968). The law and business administration in Canada.
Prentice-Hall of Canada.