united-states rental-property ownership
Who owns the washing machine?
<p>This scenario is based on a real life event but is a purely hypothetical question (because this isn't remotely worth going to court or even arguing over).  The situation seems surprisingly complicated, so it made me curious what, if anything, the "legal" answer may be.  Consider the following scenario:</p>

<ol>
<li>Tenant rents out a house which comes with a washer+dryer.</li>
<li>Lease specifically stipulates that Tenant is welcome to use washer/dryer but that Owner is not responsible for fixing them if they break.</li>
<li>Tenant moves in and discovers that the washing machine is, in fact, broken (it never worked even before Tenant moved in)</li>
<li>Conveniently, Owner recently purchased the property and has a seller's warranty available, which will cover repairs on the appliances (including washer/dryer)</li>
<li>In an attempt to be helpful, Owner calls the company that provides the warranty.  The washer is declared dead and a new washing machine is provided by said company.</li>
<li>The warranty requires a deductible for this replacement.  Since Owner declared that they would not be responsible for fixing the washer/dryer, they refuse to pay the deductible for the visit.  Tenant pays for the deductible on Owner's Warranty.</li>
<li>If it matters, the deductible is less than the cost of the replacement washing machine.</li>
</ol>

<p>In short, the owner stated they would not pay for repairs or replacement on washer/dryer.  As stated in the lease, when the washer broke the owner did not pay anything for the new washing machine - the tenant did.  However, the owner's warranty was still used to acquire the new washing machine.  <strong>Therefore, who owns the washing machine?</strong></p>

<p>The house Owner owns the washing machine.</p>

<p>Paying the deductible on Owner's warranty has nothing to do with (changing of) the ownership of it.</p>

<p>Effectively, the tenant has incurred expenses just for arranging the replacement.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Lease specifically stipulates that Tenant is welcome to use washer/dryer but that Owner is not responsible for fixing them if they break.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note that depending on the jurisdiction this term may be unenforceable: tenancy laws often stipulate that landlords have to keep things in working order at their expense (unless things break because tenants misuse/abuse them). In this case the tenant could claim the deductible he paid. But again, this would not affect the ownership of the washing machine in any way.</p>

<p><em>As an addition to Greendrake's answer:</em></p>

<p>A lot will depend on the exact nature of the agreements, both the original lease agreement, and any agreement around the repair of the washing machine.</p>

<p>As written in Greendrake's answer, there is no reason to believe the tenant can claim ownership of the washing machine. The machine was replaced under a guarantee that was extended to the owner of the original machine, so the replacment is theirs, too.</p>

<p>However, the tenant <em>may</em> be able to claim a (partial) refund of the money they paid for the repairs:</p>

<ul>
<li>They could claim that they <strong>paid the money believing that the owner would refund them</strong>. If they could show communication implying this (such as the owner writing "Go ahead, use the guarantee, that's what it is for"), that would help.</li>
<li>They could claim that they <strong>acted in the best interest of the owner</strong>, believing they would have paid if they could (because $100 for a machine is a great deal). In law this is referred to as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiorum_gestio" rel="nofollow noreferrer">negotiorum gestio</a> - essentially the tenant is sponaneously acting in the best interest of the owner, since the owner is not available. Again, the tenant would need to show that it was in the owner's interest to pay.</li>
</ul>

<p>If the case should go to arbitration or court, the tenant could make the above arguments, and the court would need to weigh them. The court might then decide that the owner needs to reimburse the deductible. The reimbursement might only be partial, because even if the payment was in the owner's interest, it was <em>also</em> in the tenant's interest. That would depend on how the court weighs the competing interests in play.</p>

<p>Please read before down-voting for not answering the question.</p>

<p>Whilst the Landlord may not be responsible or repairs to the washing machine during the lease, they are very likely responsible for it being in a serviceable condition at the <em>commencement</em> of the lease. Whilst it is also possible that the machine just happened to fail during the first use by the tenant this first use could be considered due diligence or an acceptance test. New items can fail, this is why there is a warranty.</p>

<p>The washing machine is owned by the landlord. The landlord is responsible for good working order at the beginning of the lease unless also excluded. The landlord is also responsible for the deductible as the warranty is their problem.</p>

<p>It is possible that this is an example of <em>bailment</em>. IANAL, and certainly not in the US. Laws vary from state to state in any case and can date back to Tudor times or further.</p>
