If GE, Whirlpool have no liabilities, why should landlords?

How can landlords guarantee that frig does not breakdown?

If tenants informed landlord that refrig is broken but landlord does not replace/repair in a reasonable time, it may be landlord's fault. But if landlord did, and tenants ate rotten foods, does landlord still incur liabilities? :)

所有跟帖： 

• 同感。 -朱顏- ♀ (151 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:43:49

• 別問律師了。知道了一個極端的例子，那就就要怪媽幹嗎讓你來到這世界上 -煎餅加油條- ♀ (38 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:47:52

• 是對的。不見得會發生。準備好總沒錯的。 -youxi88- ♀ (0 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:51:28

• 泳池的風險比較大，由於冰箱被告還真沒聽說過呢 -MICKEY222- ♀ (0 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:53:08

• 同意你。另，如果連這種低概率的事情都擔心，估計什麽事情也做不了了。 -Lex2004- ♀ (0 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 10:54:05

• GE, Whirlpool has liabilities as well.if it's still under Warran -youxi88- ♀ (392 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:49:15

• 等開庭就收不到租子嗎？是不是應該case是case，不交租照樣可以轟人啊 -說的好- ♀ (27 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:53:40

• 是case by case，有的律師很厲害的，他們完全可以STOP EVICTION. -youxi88- ♀ (58 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:58:36

• There are laws, there are insurance companies. -天下多蚤- ♀ (535 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:55:50

• 弄個雨傘險全搞定，扯不了那麽遠。 -瞎問瞎說- ♂ (350 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 09:54:43

• 是的，是要弄個雨傘險。不過碰上一回也很頭大吧。 -youxi88- ♀ (0 bytes) () 12/28/2012 postreply 10:02:10