I just informed Ray that he’s going to have to pay for the refinishing of his room. He’s obviously not pleased about it. (Reminder of the state of Ray’s walls here.)
I’ve yet to get a painter in for an estimate, but I’ve told Ray that the cost of filling the holes and painting the room will come out of his damage deposit.
Ray has argued back that the room will be in better condition than it was when he moved in, since it didn’t have fresh paint when he arrived. Therefore, while he has no problem with covering the cost of filling the holes, he doesn’t think he should pay for the entirety of the paint job.
My argument is that had he not punched hundreds of tiny holes in the walls, the room wouldn’t need to be painted at all. And I’m certainly not going to take on the financial responsibility of painting it after he leaves, because it will have to be done eventually. There’s no way of repairing that particular damage to the point it was at when he moved in. If there was a finish called “two year old paint job” then you can be sure I’d have that put on the walls.
But really, if he broke or damaged something concrete, such as a dish, and was asked to replace it, I wonder if he’d try to amortize how long I’ve had that dish, and what condition it was in, and just give me his perceived “actual value”, instead of buying a new one to replace it?
I’m so fed up, I’m about thisclose to starting in on a very politically incorrect “Cheap and Stingy Asian Person” tirade (though I won’t…).
So what I want to know is this: Would you give Ray a break on the cost of painting, since the room wasn’t freshly painted when he moved in? Or would you stick him with the whole cost, since it wouldn’t need to be fixed if he hadn’t ruined it in the first place?