Duty of adjustment under the Law of Sale
The adjustment of the tenant should be as agreed by the parties in the lease and in accordance with the provisions of the Sale Act.
And in any case where a discrepancy was discovered in the apartment.
Section 11 (2) of the Sale Act provides that ‘non-conformity’ may also be regarded as delivery: “a different property or a property of a different type or description than agreed.”
In the event that the parties have agreed that the bookcase currently in the apartment will remain for the tenant, then it does not matter much whether the landlord prefers to replace the bookcase with another cabinet.
Although it is possible that the tenant will see the replacement as a ‘non-compliance’ by law (of course subject to the conditions of the duty of good faith).
With this, all the difficulties of the landlord did not end.
The landlord is obligated to hand over the apartment together with its contents in accordance with the features required for their normal use.
And in the language of the law: (Section 11 (3) of the Sale Law): A non-conformity shall be considered “an asset that does not have the quality or features necessary for its ordinary or commercial use or for a special purpose implied by the agreement.”
For the sake of convenience, the charge of ‘adjustment’ may be called a warning from what is colloquially called ‘combina- a shady plan’, an inappropriate alternative.
For example, if the landlord undertakes to hand over an apartment together with a new storehouse building in the garden, the reference is not to a container, ‘container’, which is converted to be used as a storehouse, but to a structure intended to be used as a storehouse; If the landlord undertook to deliver an apartment with a TV, it is not a computer screen that can be used as a TV; A wardrobe is not a shelving cabinet that can also be used for clothes; A sofa is not a bed that opens into a sofa, and so on.
The duty of adaptation also applies to the use of the usual quality and features of the product.
One can stretch this obligation and argue that the product should be legal, safe, harmless, convenient, effective, and reasonably economical.
Let’s take a case of an underfloor heating system.
There is a system based on water pumps whose installation cost is very expensive and its’ cost of use is very low.
On the other hand, we will take a heating system on electricity which has a very low installation cost and is very expensive to use.
It can be argued that the landlord has a positive obligation to declare to the tenant what type of underfloor heating system has been installed in the apartment.