Residential rental law in the United States

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- Residential rental law in the United States，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了美国的住宅租赁法律。美国住宅租赁法律制度由判例法、各州和自治地方立法，以及联邦立法构成。从以往的美国联邦与各州相关立法和法院判例来看，当代美国住宅租赁法越来越注重对承租人住宅权的保障。法律要求房东承担适住性担保义务和更多的侵权责任，限制房东终止租赁的权利，给承租人以正当理由驱逐的保护。

The legal system of residential leasing in the United States is mainly derived from the ancient case law of the United Kingdom with a strong feudal agricultural nature. In this system of common law rules, lease is regarded as the transfer of the property right of the leased land and has nothing to do with the contract between the two parties. The contractual obligations of both parties are independent of each other and are not mutually conditional. Therefore, even if the landlord fails to fulfill the agreed obligations, the tenant must still pay the rent. The tenant is also responsible for most of the maintenance. "These principles are clearly not appropriate for the environment of a modern city and do not reflect the individual and public interests that the law should protect." But under the protection of the courts, landlords have exercised this common law right for most of the 20th century. They hand over homes that do not meet safety and hygiene standards to tenants, enjoying the right to charge rent but with little obligation.

It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s that courts began to treat real estate leases as contracts to provide services. The application of contract rules gives courts all the flexibility of modern contract law in dealing with tenancy. The court also distinguishes residential leasing from commercial leasing, and leasing for the purpose of family living is residential leasing. The general regulations applicable to the two types of leases are generally the same, but there are obvious differences in the orientation and specific ways in which the courts apply these rules based on the policy considerations behind them and the legitimate expectations of both parties. On the one hand, the court held that the tenant of a commercial lease is more likely to have sufficient negotiation ability and skills to protect his interests to the greatest extent in the lease, which is exactly what the tenant lacks. On the other hand, the court noted that rental housing was the way in which a considerable number of residential tenants met their basic residential needs. As j.kelly Wright argued in the jervis case: "it may still be reasonable to lease agricultural land or commercial land. In these cases, the value of the lease is only in the land itself. But for a tenant of a modern apartment, the value of a lease is that it gives the tenant a place to live.

This change in concept is more clearly reflected in the states' written legislation on residential leasing. By the beginning of the 21st century, with the exception of a handful of states, notably Arkansas, whose laws were still upholding the "authority" of landlords, most of the state's legislation had shifted to protecting tenants' interests. In 1972, in order to have a unified applicable legal rule for residential leasing, the national committee of unified state law of the United States proposed the unified residential leasing relations act. So far, more than a dozen states have made their own laws based on it, and the legislation and judgments of other states are more or less affected by it. In addition, the American law society sorted out typical case rules and legal theories in the form of law restatement, which also played an important role in guiding the practice of residential lease law.

Local governments below the state level also have the right, within their respective jurisdictions, to enact municipal regulations and regulate residential rental relationships. Many cities have enacted local laws and regulations on the management of residential leasing, which has become the statutory basis of residential leasing in various regions.

The property legislative power to adjust the housing lease relationship belongs to the reserved power of states in the federal and local power distribution system stipulated in the constitution of the United States. Therefore, the federal law rarely directly interferes in the housing lease relationship. In 1968, the federal fair housing act limited discriminatory practices in the field of residential leasing from the perspective of protecting citizens' equal rights. In emergencies such as wars, the federal government often interferes in the housing rental relationship through legislation. For example, during the second world war, congress passed the emergency price control act, which authorized the control of rent. In addition, for drug crimes that seriously endanger society, the congress passed the amendment act on drug-related housing eviction in 1990, which provided that if the lessee was involved in drug crimes when renting the house, the lessor could take back the house for legitimate reasons.

In the process of the development of the legal system of residential rental in the United States, it can be seen that the tenant's personal life needs rather than property and contractual rights, is getting more and more attention. The changing rules of law are moving toward the goal of ensuring that modern American tenants have a stable access to safe, comfortable, healthy and affordable housing. Although still controversial, this change has been fully reflected in the legislation and precedents of American residential rental.

Among the numerous obligations that modern legislation and courts require landlords to undertake, the most important one is the obligation of guarantee of habitability: the landlord must ensure that the tenant has a safe, comfortable and healthy living environment. Although there is no need for luxury, the landlord must meet the minimum standard of "home".

However, until the 1970s, under the traditional common law "buyer beware" rule, the landlord was not obliged to ensure that the leased house was in a condition suitable for human habitation unless the parties agreed to the contrary. The common law imposes most of the responsibility for the maintenance of the home on the tenant, based on the principle that the possessor of the property is liable for damage caused by his actions under the damage act. Even if the damage is caused by natural causes, the obligation of repair shall be borne by the lessee. If the premises are in danger of decay or other uninhabitable conditions during the lease term, the tenant shall still pay the rent as agreed. And residential tenant, be medium, low income person more, neither will undertake the responsibility that maintains a residence without ability also. Therefore, compared with self-owned houses, rental houses generally lack of proper maintenance, resulting in poor quality. The living standard of the tenants living in it is much lower than the per capita level, and the housing right cannot be guaranteed.

That changed after the 1970s. In "jie Vince" case, the judge Wright said: "today, when the us city of tenants, rich or poor, looking for 'premises wind from the rain, they are looking for is called a complete set of goods and services, not only including the walls and roof, also includes plenty of heating, lighting, good ventilation, durable pipeline facilities, security Windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance." In a majority opinion in the case, he ruled that the lease implied a guarantee of habitability under the building code, "if the lessor breaches this implied provision, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent and continue to own the house." The principle of guarantee of habitability established in this case has been widely complied with. Some subsequent decisions have further expanded the scope of the guarantee, even without legislative provisions such as the building code, which constitute a violation of the guarantee of habitability as long as the residence has serious defects and is deemed uninhabitable by a reasonable person.

This guarantee is regarded as an implied clause of the lease contract, whose effect is not limited to the beginning of the lease, and the landlord has the obligation to guarantee that the house is in a livable state during the lease term. This is a minimum obligation and the provision that a tenant waives the guaranteed benefits of habitability may be invalid in contravention of law or public policy. The guarantee of habitability not only requires the landlord to guarantee the robustness and safety of the residential building structure, but also requires the landlord to provide a series of house-related services. For example, the landlord is obliged to provide heating in winter and air conditioning in summer to maintain the temperature in the residence at a livable level, so as to ensure the comfort and health of the tenant's life. More than 40 states have passed legislation or precedents to recognize varying degrees of livable warranties. The landlord's violation of the guarantee of habitability can not only serve as the defense of the tenant against the landlord's request for rent payment, but also serve as the basis for the tenant to demand the return of the paid rent and claim compensation.

Initially, the guarantee of habitability was not considered to be applicable to public housing. Those who hold this view believe that the policy objectives of public housing legislation can completely meet the guarantee of residential habitability. However, the declaration of policy objectives does not mean that they become a reality. In order to provide security for tenants who do not meet the living conditions of public housing, some courts extend the scope of application of this guarantee to public housing, so that public tenants are also entitled to rent relief and other relief.

Under traditional common law, landlords have little obligation and no liability. Only in a few cases will the court find the landlord liable for infringement. With the increase of the obligations imposed on landlords by statutes and precedents, the possibility that landlords are judged to be liable for infringement is also increasing. In the form of liability, strict liability has appeared gradually, and the compensation standard also tends to rise.

In states such as New York, New Jersey and Michigan, as landlords became liable for warranties of habitability, courts held them liable for injuries caused to tenants and their families as a result of their negligence in failing to perform maintenance obligations. Many laws and regulations do not specify the rights of tenants, such as the provision that landlords will be fined if they do not guarantee 24-hour lighting in the residential passage. The court found that such statutes created implied rights for tenants to Sue landlords for damages.

The guarantee of habitability only applies to the physical condition of the house. "the landlord may be a know-it-all about maintenance, but he is not a doctor". Of course the landlord can't be a policeman. Therefore, the traditional view is that the landlord is not responsible for the loss caused by the infringement of the tenant by the third party. However, in Klein's case, the court ruled that as long as the landlord foresaw the occurrence of the crime, he was obligated to protect the safety of the tenant or take responsibility for the personal injury suffered by the tenant. If the landlord mentions security in the advertisement and the building is located in an area with a high incidence of crime or has committed a crime in the building, the landlord will be highly likely to be judged responsible. In Johnston v. Harris, tenants were robbed as they entered apartments in high-crime neighborhoods. The tenant sued the landlord for negligence in not providing adequate lighting and proper locks. The court held the landlord liable. The landlord's obligation to protect the personal safety of the tenant is further strengthened.

In the vast majority of cases, the responsibility of the landlord is based on the premise of fault. Until today, there are still courts that consider negligence as the principle universally applicable in the field of residential leasing. But as residential leasing is seen as a range of goods and services, tenants are seen as consumers of services provided by landlords. Some consumer protection laws are also gradually being applied to residential leases. Some courts began to introduce the liability of warranty for quality defects in the field of product liability law into the field of residential leasing, requiring landlords to bear strict liability for damages caused by leased property. In particular, institutional landlords who have a batch of rented apartments are more capable than tenants to ensure that the leased property is in good condition and avoid losses and injuries. In baker v. investor relations management, the court held the landlord responsible for a flaw in the bathroom glass door installed by the institutional landlord that resulted in the tenant's accidental injury. "The cost of protecting the safety of tenants is a reasonable operating cost for enterprises," the court said in its ruling.

Multiplexing, a common practice in consumer protection laws, has also been introduced into residential leasing. Compensation often amounts to millions of dollars. The high compensation has forced the landlord to carefully fulfill his obligations to ensure the safety of the tenant's life. The potential liability of the landlord is not limited to this. In some states, the landlord may even be criminally liable if he rents a house that does not meet the legal residence standards. Rights and obligations are relatively balanced. Behind the expansion of landlord's obligations and responsibilities, we can see that the right of tenants to secure, comfortable and healthy houses has emerged.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创essay代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的essay代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多essay代写范文 提供代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。