Fallacious and cogent arguments in Baqi v. Knight and Lowman

Fallacious and Cogent Arguments Involving Tenant and Landlord Issues

On March 16, 2010 the plaintiff named Nasir Baqi (Landlord) and two defendants, Jeremy Knight and Virginia Lowman (Tenants), argued their case before three magistrates identified as Arndt, Darling and Murray at the Justice of the Peace Court No. 16 of Delaware, Kent County. All appeared pro-se meaning they had no attorneys to represent them.

The Landlord filed the lawsuit seeking payment of rents in arrears plus late fees for six months. Tenants argued that they withheld rents because the Landlord had failed to make repairs to their unit.

The Landlord's Argument

From October 2009 to March 2010 the tenants failed to pay rents in the amount of $3,644 plus late fees of $150. The Landlord argued that he had sent a five day letter to Tenants demanding rent to be paid and another letter to address the repairs and the complaint filed by the Tenants with local authorities.

The Landlord supplied written receipts from Martin Toledo of Martin's Home Improvement stating that he had attempted to make repairs on January 30, 2010. As additional evidence of intent to repair the problem, the Landlord also provided a letter that indicated the Tenants had asked the contractor to leave the apartment before he could complete the repairs.

The Cogent and Fallacious Issues

From a cogent reasoning perspective, landlords are entitled to monthly rent when an apartment is occupied. However, the Landlord in this case did not attempt to make repairs to the unit until notified by the Town of Smyrna that a complaint had been filed. The fallacious component of Landlord's reasoning was that Landlord was owed rent in full despite the condition of the apartment. Additionally, Landlord committed a "retaliatory act" by not retrieving certified mail and allowing more than six months to pass before attempting repairs.

On the other hand, Tenants had a right to expect the Landlord to repair apartment. The Tenants gave notice and pursued action to compel Landlord to make repairs. They followed fallacious reasoning when they withheld the entire amount of their rent because they continued to occupy the unit and benefit from that occupation.

Conclusion

The Landlord was entitled to payment of rents reduced by three full months of rent because he had committed the Retaliatory Act. The tenants were in the process of vacating the unit.