Question
Rent-check snafu: does this rise to the level of a moral dilemma?
Joe Landlord rents out 6 cabins at the edge of his Lake Champlain property. One first-of-the-month, Bob Tenant walked his rent check over to Joe’s house but lost the check along the way, probably to a strong offshore wind. So he walked over another check. He decided not to stop payment on the first because: (1) it cost $20; (2) the wind had been blowing hard all day, and the lake was 20 yards away; (3) the landlord had only 6 tenants to keep track of; surely he’d notice a duplicate. To ensure that he did, Bob enclosed a note with the second check telling Joe what had happened. Naturally, the original check ended up in a snowdrift where Jack Neighbor spotted it the next morning. Jack took the speckled, beat-up check to Joe, who deposited it. When he noticed that his checking account balance was low by a month’s rent, Bob called Joe to arrange a refund or a credit, but Joe maintained that Bob had freely paid him twice and was entitled to nothing. Ready to move anyway, Bob skipped the next month’s payment and left at the end of the month, to which Joe said nothing, though he did eventually return Bob’s security deposit. What surprised Bob about the whole thing was that some of his friends and coworkers—more than he would have expected—saw the episode as a real moral dilemma. A few said that, in Joe’s position, they would have felt justified in keeping both checks. What do you think?
1 month ago - 3 answers
Best Answer
Chosen by Asker
Most moral dilemmas involving money are reduced to legal obligations when a comprehensive contract is ironed out. In this case, Bob made three assumptions, all three of which turned out to lead to a situation where he had two valid cheques being sent to the landlord. He should have come to a legally binding agreement with Joe over the status of the lost cheque, and what to do if it was found, before giving him a separate cheque. That or he should've swallowed the bitter mouthful and put a 'stop payment' on the cheque and taken the $20 hit as a lesson well learned. Now in this case, everything worked out because Joe took advantage of a legal gray area and voluntarily overlooked another legal gray area, evening things out. For my opinion, I figure the following: A moral dilemma usually works out best when all parties behave as though they *could* have been the party having the disadvantage, and acting as they would expect to be treated if they were in that situation.
by Anonymous
1 month ago
Asker's Rating: 
Other Answers
The lease agreed to by both landlord and tenant spells out the rent is per month or so much for the 12 months if it is a year lease. It also spells out if there is a last month and a security deposit. All of these things are in black and white. In court the tenant would prove that the landlord cashed 13 checks but the tenant moved out before the 13th month. It is not only a matter of integrity on the part of the landlord to return or give credit for overpaid rent but he would also be legally obligated to conform to the terms of the lease. The moral of the story is don't ever trust the friends and coworkers with any of your money. They are dishonest and have now declared themselves.
by Othniel- 1 month ago
go to the police, and file a theft charge then go to small claims court. you win..!!!!!!
by bill the businessman- 1 month ago