359
Bruce needs to get to it
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
359 points (93.0% liked)
Funny
6851 readers
55 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think the “fit for uses reasonably intended” is probably the more relevant clause here. A dipshit landlord could try to argue that hot water is a luxury or something, but have a much harder time arguing that it’s unreasonable to expect hot water to work as initially sold and provided. Depends on how “fit for human habitation” is legally defined.
Any judge in NY would call hot water required for human habitation by invoking “common sense” based on human body’s propensity for hypothermia under colder temps. Besides, cold showers can come with health risks: https://bestlifeonline.com/cold-shower-risks/
I'm not sure that particular argument works that well. You won't go into hypothermia because you don't have hot running water. It would be better argument for fixing the heat.
It's certainly something that's reasonable to assume to be working though, so I think “fit for uses reasonably intended” is the sounder argument here.
Nice that they have it so clearly. No need for interpretation
Water gets real fucking cold during the winter, it costs me way more to heat water during the winter than summer, usually 4 times more.
Fair point, I think a good lawyer could argue the “cold water can make my client sick” argument though, or even a judge could come to that conclusion in a small claims court.