Search results

You do realise I'm a solicitor that extensively practises in residential tenancy law? I lecture at law school on the subject, and am currently acting as a consultant to Tenancy WA. I'd like to think my "interpretation" carries a little more weight than the average punter. Its true you can...

I suppose that's technically true. You sound a lot like one of my old traffic offence clients though: "Well that's just your opinion - I'm not guilty until the Magistrate says so"

I just told you the official stance.

This thread is confusing as hell. Is everyone talking about different things? To clarify, if the damage is indivisible, then its fine to take the "whole" cost to repair. A separate issue from the divisibility of the damage, is whether or not you need to take into account the age and...

Ohhh. No I said that was fine.

Do you understand? Why would it be $200 for a $1400 benchtop unless it was near the end of its useful life? Do you mean $1200 out of a $1400 benchtop if its a few years old?

Why not? Otherwise you would be getting something new for old - which isn't exactly an accurate costing of the damage caused.

If its brand new, then it should be okay to claim at first instance. You would otherwise need to factor in some depreciation (new for old).