<p>The Op thinks a standard, common 12 month lease is a rip-off because his son needs only 10 months? Seriously? A rip-off? Say it’s disappointing. Say it’s unfortunate. But a “ripoff”? It’s not fair to want to lease a home for 12 months, hence his use of the term “rip-off”? How about seeing it from the investor’s(landlord) point of view? Would you think it fair to make him rent to your son for 10 months, then make him have an empty unit for two? If he were to rent unit for 10 months, do you think he could get a replacement tenant in that only wanted to stay for 2 months, without missing a day’s rent? If not, then his unit sits empty for 2 months waiting on the next semester to begin. In the meantime, he likely pays a mortgage, utilities, property tax and insurance on a vacant property. Somehow you think that is fair; as requiring 12 month lease is a “rip-off”? Even if we were to assume(and I can barely keep a straight face) that college students would leave a unit perfect- and ready for the next tenant, there is practically no chance another renter would come in wanting only 2 months, then be out for the next semester’s new year-long tenancy.
The landlord offers a product- a home to those who want to rent. If you don’t like his terms offer a counteroffer or move on to another rental. He doesn’t have to bend because a potential renter has atypical housing needs. He can, of course, if it’s in his best interest. But he doesn’t have to.
Those who buy a new car pay the negotiated price, even if they expect to sell it before it’s completely worn out. Restaurants don’t offer partial refunds for patrons who <em>feel full</em> before their meal is finished. If you hire a painter by the job, and he finishes quicker than you expected you don’t get a partial refund.
Negotiate the terms and if they don’t suit you move on. It’s not a rip-off if what a potential renter wants is different than what a landlord wants- in this case.</p>