The first two forum responses need bluebook format with footnotes 250 words or more:
Forum 1 response:
Apple Orchard Apartments rented a unit to Polly for $1000 per month. Polly paid the first two months’ rent for June and July, but then her Air Conditioning unit broke and Apple Orchard has not repaired it. Polly has refused to pay rent for August and September in protest.
Questions to Answer:
1. What are the rights and responsibilities of each party? Assume a general lease agreement as discussed in your text.
According to our text, in chapter 18 on page 542, English common law is discussed and it says that a landlordâ€™s promise is separate from the promise of a tenant. If one party fails to fulfill a promise that does not give the other party the right to refuse to fulfill their promise. This means that Polly is still responsible for paying her monthly rent even if Apple Orchard Apartments fails to fix her air conditioning. They are currently both failing to fulfill their responsibilities but as the saying goes, â€œTwo wrongs donâ€™t make a right.â€ Even if one party is being mistreated they should address their grievances through appropriate and legal means. 
Page 544 states â€œA tenant has a contractual obligation to pay rent.â€ The facts are clear, Polly has the obligation to pay her rent each month. Exhibit 18-1 shows details of the responsibilities of both parties. Number one for the tenant is to pay rent. But number two for the landlord is to â€œKeep property and common area in good repair.â€ By this definition the landlord has a responsibility to fix the air conditioning. At this point neither party is living up to their responsibilities. 
Most leases state that a tenant cannot make structural alterations to the residence so Polly canâ€™t legally install window air condition units (assuming it was the central air that was broken). Instead of failing to pay the rent she should remind the landlord that the lease specifies that he must keep the property in good repair. He has the â€œobligation of repair.â€ Unlike the old common law where a tenant leases the property as is, in modern law the landlord must keep the property in good order. 
But since Polly is in â€œdefaultâ€ (failure to pay her rent) the landlord can take action. He has three typical remedies: 1) he can sue Polly for performance, (2) terminate her lease and sue for damages, or (3) evict Polly and then sue. Another option is for the landlord to place a lean on Pollyâ€™s personal property. This only works if there are items of significant value. None of these options are timely. It would ultimately be better if the landlord simply fixed the broken air condition. 
Since the landlord is not fixing the air conditioning then Polly is not receiving her promise of â€œQuiet Enjoyment.â€ The term quiet enjoyment is within many leases. Ultimately Polly should use the angle previously discussed, the landlord is not fulfilling his promise to keep the property and common area in good repair. 
So, what would ultimately happen if both parties held their ground? They would both be in the wrong. Polly was actually on solid legal footing whilst paying her rent. Now that she is in default she is breaking her promise. If this goes to court both parties would be found in the wrong. If Polly continued to pay her rent then she would be 100 percent in the right and would likely receive damages. 
 Daniel F. Hinkel, Practical Real Estate Law 542-562 (3d ed. 2000)
Forum 2 response:
In school and at home I learned that two wrongs do not make a right. I think that lesson can apply to the situation with Polly and her landlord and their dispute about a broken air conditioning unit. The air conditioning unit broke but after Pollyâ€™s request to have the unit repair did not work, Polly decided to withhold rent. Both sides are at fault.
The landlord may be operating under the common law belief that he was not responsible for repairing the air conditioning because â€œthe common law of leases made a major departure from contract law in holding that lease covenants were independent.â€[i] This means that his promise to conduct repair of the property is independent of the renters promise to make the rental payment. In laymenâ€™s terms, the renter cannot withhold rent just because the air conditioning is broken. The landlord is correct that the renter cannot withhold rent because he did not repair the air conditioning unit. But he may be incorrect that he does not have to make any repairs.
Under a common law approach, a landlord is not responsible for repair of the premises. The renter leased the premises â€œas is,â€ with full obligations to make the repairs themselves.[ii] The common says that the landlord is not only not responsible for the repair of the premises, but also the landlord is not responsible for any injuries caused by the condition of the premises or the lack of repair.
However, under most statesâ€™ contract law, the landlord is required to make repairs to property as part of the contractual agreement. In this case, there was a preexisting air conditioning unit that had been in working condition but stopped working during the contract period. Under Texas law, property code 92.052, the landlord is required to repair the air conditioning unit.[iii]
Each party to this dispute can pursue remedies. The landlord can (a) sue the tenant for performance, (b) terminate the lease and sue for damages, and (c) dispossess the tenant and sue for damages.[iv]The renter also has options to resolve the issue. The renter must inform the landlord of the broken unit in writing and wait three days for a response. If the landlord does not make the needed repairs, then the renter can send the landlord a second notice, telling the landlord that if the air conditioning unit is not fixed, then the renter will pay for the repairs out of their pocket and deduct the cost from the rent due.[v]
In this particular scenario, both parties have legitimate concerns but both parties handled their duties and responsibilities in an incorrect manner. The landlord has the requirement to make the repairs and the renter has the duty to continue to make their rental payments even if the landlord does not make a timely repair.
[i]Hinkel, Daniel F. Practical Real Estate Law. pages 542, vol. 3rd edition, Delmar Thomson Learning, 2000
Forum 3 response 250 words or more with peer reviewed works cited:
Q: With the end of the Cold War, many Western observers assumed that liberal democratic capitalism was the only effective remaining path to modernization for the developing world. Nonetheless, China’s unprecedented rise in the global economic hierarchy has raised the possibility of an alternative “illiberal” state-led capitalism.
Hence, what is the Chinese model? And is the developmental state a viable alternative growth model for the countries of the South? Is it a serious challenger to free market capitalism?
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, many people agreed that a neo-liberal Capitalist economic model was superior to a planned communist or developmental state model. Clearly Western European capitalist countries had achieved a higher living standard than the Communist East. The prevailing thought was that the Cold War had ended and Capitalism had won.
However, the rapid rise of China, a communist state but one that employed elements of capitalism within the framework of a developmental state is an interesting case study. Certainly the rapid growth of the Chinese Economy and it;s effects of the rest of the world, because of globalization deserve closer scrutiny.
Developmental state coalitions emphasize a strong, competent, insulated state bureaucracy; a pilot agency able to control industrial policy through its influence over key sectors of the economy, such as finance, energy, and transportation; and links between the state and the business community that blur the publicâ€“private distinction and enable the state to steer the economy in a particular direction (Johnson 1982, Leftwich 1995, Deans 2000). Neo-liberal coalitions, on the other hand, emphasize a limited role for the bureaucracy in the economy, including, for example, having an independent central bank. They also advocate for the market, not pilot agencies, leading the industrialization process and for a clear distinction between the state and the private sector (Cerny 2006, Robison 2006).
Stubbs (2011), writes that, Developmental state coalitions emphasize a strong, competent, insulated state bureaucracy; a pilot agency able to control industrial policy through its influence over key sectors of the economy, such as finance, energy, and transportation; and links between the state and the business community that blur the publicâ€“private distinction and enable the state to steer the economy in a particular direction (Johnson 1982, Leftwich 1995, Deans 2000). Neo-liberal coalitions, on the other hand, emphasize a limited role for the bureaucracy in the economy, including, for example, having an independent central bank. They also advocate for the market, not pilot agencies, leading the industrialization process and for a clear distinction between the state and the private sector (Cerny 2006, Robison 2006).
The hands of approach to the economy is a hot topic at the moment vis a vie China and the USA where each side has slapped tariffs onto the others imports/exports. Ostensibly the USA did this to retaliate against the Chinese state intervention and subsidies into several industries but notably steel, that gave them (the Chinese) a competitive advantage over US companies.
Weâ€™ll see how this latest episode plays out, but, it is interesting to not that the US does intervene in the economy as well by providing tax breaks to preferred sectors and industries.
Stubbs (2011), quotes Pempel 1999, Stubbs 2009, Hayashi 2010, when they write that, The developmental state coalition generally includes politicians who have tied their careers to the developmental state approach as well as those who represent areas of a country or specific parts of the population that have benefited from developmental state policies. Other notable members of the developmental state coalition are bureaucrats and groups of bureaucrats who come from ministries and agencies that have successfully implemented developmental state policies and believe in their value to the larger society.
This befitting of certain bureaucrats and ministers is one of the endemic problems of a planned economy-corruption. Of course corruption does occur within neo-liberal states as well in the form of market manipulation, insider trading etc.
Pempel 1999, Stubbs 2009, Hayashi 2010 (as quoted by Subbs, 2011) continue that, Similarly, both agricultural and industrial producer groups help to make up the developmental state coalition. Especially active tend to be those businesses and groups of businesses, such as small farmers as well as small and medium-sized businesses catering to the domestic market, that have benefited from import-substitution policies such as tariffs or quotas and the protection of infant industries.
This is interesting to note as in the neo-liberal model big business and agriculture are often at odds with each other rather than in a symbiotic relationship.
Subbs (2011) continues by citing Pempel 1999, Stubbs 2009, Hayashi 2010, where they write that, In addition, business groups of all sizes that have been helped by export subsidies of one form or another have been members of the developmental state coalition. Moreover, the coalition is also buttressed by those within the general public who value the rapid, reasonably equitable, and widespread economic growth that developmental state policies deliver and by those among the political elite who are concerned that neo-liberal policies could lead to increasing disparities of wealth within the population which in turn could affect social harmony and stability (Pempel 1999, Stubbs 2009, Hayashi 2010). On the other hand, neo-liberal state structures and policies have been promoted by a very different set of individuals and groups. At the forefront of the neo-liberal coalitions have been Western-trained technocrats, many of whom hold key positions in economic planning agencies, central ministries, such as finance or trade and industry, and the central bank. Coalition members have also included groups of Western-trained economists in universities and at policy think-tanks, as well as non-Asian managers in Asian companies who value emulating Americaâ€™s strong economic performance over the years and adhering to Western orthodox economic philosophy (Yeung 2007).
My take away from all this is that there are pros and cons to both the neo-liberal and developmental models. A hybrid policy that seeks to capitalize on the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses may be the best system in todayâ€™s fast paced world. China, especially in the case of Hong Kong, seems to have struck a pretty good balance here. There growth over the last twenty years, I think, tends to validate my hypothesis.
Stubbs, Richard. 2011. “The East Asian developmental state and the Great Recession: evolving contesting coalitions.” Contemporary Politics 17, no. 2: 151-166. 14 PAGES
The final response is answering this question 250 words:
How much intervention is there in the economy in the US?
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”