A reversal of logic in question 1? PT 50 Section 2
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:54 pm
If it is pre-existing damage and you record it, then you are not required to pay for it.
If you are not required to pay, then it was any damage beyond the tenant's control.
The question is asking us what supports the judgement of not required to pay.
Answer choice B tells me that it was a factor beyond the tenant's control. To believe that this would give a judgement of not required to pay would be a reversal of logic.
If you are not required to pay, then it was any damage beyond the tenant's control.
The question is asking us what supports the judgement of not required to pay.
Answer choice B tells me that it was a factor beyond the tenant's control. To believe that this would give a judgement of not required to pay would be a reversal of logic.