Were the Mertzes in the wrong in the episode THE SUBLEASE? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Ireneparalegal · 06-30-2008, 12:43 PM

This is the episode where the Mertzes become upset at the Ricardos who sublease their apartment for $300. The Ricardos only pay $150 a month rent. What are your thoughts on how the Mertzes reacted?

tdr · 06-30-2008, 04:24 PM

I do think the Mertzes were in the wrong, in the normative sense, if not the legal. The extra money the Ricardos would get for subleasing would be because of their furnishings, though this is not gone into in detail, and (I presume, though I wouldn't know for sure) that the utility bills would be paid by the sublessors so they could retain all their accounts in good standing (in spite of Lucy's money mishandling in other eps

). So if they made a profit, per se, in subleasing, it wouldn't be too much, and may not help them come out even overall for the summer, with the expenses of being away (I also presume not everything would be covered by expense accounts).

So the Mertzes reaction-- to refuse anyone to whom subleasing is proposed just to spite the Ricardos for "making money on our apartment"-- is immaturely vindictive. Consider this in light of their complete refusal to pay for even half the fuel on the auto trip to California, while they only agreed to permit a sublease on the apartment if they got half the extra rent, for which they didn't own half the furniture or pay half the utility bills (if any were paid by landlord, it wouldn't make any difference). Yep... greedy reaction(s).

Ireneparalegal · 06-30-2008, 04:35 PM

As I watched this episode this morning before leaving for the day, I couldn't help but think how greedy the Mertzes were myself. I too believe the extra money paid for the rent of the apartment by Mr. Beecher, in a sense was to cover the fact he would have a completely FURNISHED apartment. The Ricardos pay $150 rent simply for an UNFURNISHED apartment. They had to pay out of their own pocket to have the unit furnished, a refrigerator (I presume) and a washer (most definitely the Ricardos paid for that). Those are things Mr. Beecher would have use of.

I am surprised the rental agent did not mention to the Ricardos if they had received permission from the landlords (the Mertzes) prior to subleasing the unit. Or, maybe she had mentioned it and the Ricardos "assumed" it would be ok with Fred and Ethel.

The Mertzes were tight when it came to paying for 1/2 the gas on the California trip, which occurred after this episode. It would have been a good point by Ricky to say to Fred, "Do you recall how I shared the profit from the sublease on our apartment? I think it is only fair you share the gas on this trip." I still cannot fathom how Fred had the gall to go on trip as invited guests and refuse to even pay for some of the gas.

InspectorExstead · 06-30-2008, 04:36 PM

good topic irene!
i never saw fred's side of that situation. if ricky was paying his full rent and it was on time, what was the problem of letting someone sublease their apartment but charging extra? like tdr said, the apartment was fully furnished so the person subletting it wouldn't have to spend any money on furniture.

the trip to california bugged me a lot more though. true, the backseat would have to go with the car, but the fact that fred was so unwilling to pay for anything was so annoying. this was never mentioned on the show, but fred never had to pay for the hotel, right? i'm thinking he didn't because if he did, he and ethel would've stayed somewhere cheaper. so he got free hotel in hollywood for a month and he was still unwilling to chip in for gas? very greedy and selfish on his part. he could just cough up 50 bucks or 100. or even OFFERED to pay. maybe ricky would've turned his money down in the end. that was pretty annoying.

Ireneparalegal · 06-30-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InspectorExstead

good topic irene!
i never saw fred's side of that situation. if ricky was paying his full rent and it was on time, what was the problem of letting someone sublease their apartment but charging extra? like tdr said, the apartment was fully furnished so the person subletting it wouldn't have to spend any money on furniture.

the trip to california bugged me a lot more though. true, the backseat would have to go with the car, but the fact that fred was so unwilling to pay for anything was so annoying. this was never mentioned on the show, but fred never had to pay for the hotel, right? i'm thinking he didn't because if he did, he and ethel would've stayed somewhere cheaper. so he got free hotel in hollywood for a month and he was still unwilling to chip in for gas? very greedy and selfish on his part. he could just cough up 50 bucks or 100. or even OFFERED to pay. maybe ricky would've turned his money down in the end. that was pretty annoying.

^^Great post. I am always annoyed at how tight Fred is and never considering how much money the Ricardos spent on them.

There is a new thread on here regarding the trip to Calif. Maybe you can copy and paste this post on that thread too.

Ireneparalegal · 06-30-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InspectorExstead

good topic irene!
i never saw fred's side of that situation. if ricky was paying his full rent and it was on time, what was the problem of letting someone sublease their apartment but charging extra? like tdr said, the apartment was fully furnished so the person subletting it wouldn't have to spend any money on furniture.

I think Fred was absolutely wrong on both issues, the sublease and the gas to Hollywood.

Funny how two topics connected to Fred's cheapness happened to be made today.

InspectorExstead · 06-30-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

I think Fred was absolutely wrong on both issues, the sublease and the gas to Hollywood.

Funny how two topics connected to Fred's cheapness happened to be made today.

lol. it just isn't fred's day today.

Ireneparalegal · 07-01-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InspectorExstead

lol. it just isn't fred's day today.

Anytime it came to money, it was NEVER Ricky's day.

InspectorExstead · 07-01-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

Anytime it came to money, it was NEVER Ricky's day.

so, so true.

Lodee · 07-01-2008, 09:43 AM

Good points about the furniture. I think Fred and Ethel were wrong.

Madame X · 07-01-2008, 04:23 PM

I originally thought Lucy & Ricky were wrong, but upon thinking about it, what's the difference as long as the Mertzes got their rent? And didn't the couples originally make an agreement to split the profit? If that's true, then there shouldn't even have been an issue.

I think the bigger issue was the Ricardos living with the Mertzes. Maybe that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Did the Ricardos totally mooch, or did they pay their way?

Ireneparalegal · 07-01-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame X

I originally thought Lucy & Ricky were wrong, but upon thinking about it, what's the difference as long as the Mertzes got their rent? And didn't the couples originally make an agreement to split the profit? If that's true, then there shouldn't even have been an issue.

I think the bigger issue was the Ricardos living with the Mertzes. Maybe that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Did the Ricardos totally mooch, or did they pay their way?

The couples agreed to split the profits AFTER the rental agent, Mrs. Hammond gave her two cents on how to settle the squabble after the Mertzes denied all the potential renters. The squabble started after Fred said it wasn't fair Ricky made a $150 profit on the apartment when the Ricardos only paid $150 to begin with.

The Ricardos moved in temporarily with the Mertzes since Mr. Beecher, the renter, wouldn't leave the apartment after the deal in Maine fell through for Ricky. Mr. Beecher stated he paid for 3 months rent and was not going to leave. That left the Ricardos high and dry without a place. While they stayed with the Mertzes, the Ricardos were searching for another temporary apartment. Ricky ended up finding out he was going to Del Mar, California for an engagement.

06-30-2008, 12:43 PM	#1
Ireneparalegal LEGAL SPICE ;) Forum Legend Join Date: Jul 25, 2005 Location: OXNARD, CA - WHERE THE DALLAS COWBOYS TRAIN & PRACTICE Posts: 38,691	Were the Mertzes in the wrong in the episode THE SUBLEASE? This is the episode where the Mertzes become upset at the Ricardos who sublease their apartment for $300. The Ricardos only pay $150 a month rent. What are your thoughts on how the Mertzes reacted?
	__________________ DALLAS COWBOYS ARE HERE AT TRAINING CAMP!!!

06-30-2008, 04:36 PM	#4
InspectorExstead Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Oct 29, 2001 Location: The Golden State Posts: 12,902	good topic irene! i never saw fred's side of that situation. if ricky was paying his full rent and it was on time, what was the problem of letting someone sublease their apartment but charging extra? like tdr said, the apartment was fully furnished so the person subletting it wouldn't have to spend any money on furniture. the trip to california bugged me a lot more though. true, the backseat would have to go with the car, but the fact that fred was so unwilling to pay for anything was so annoying. this was never mentioned on the show, but fred never had to pay for the hotel, right? i'm thinking he didn't because if he did, he and ethel would've stayed somewhere cheaper. so he got free hotel in hollywood for a month and he was still unwilling to chip in for gas? very greedy and selfish on his part. he could just cough up 50 bucks or 100. or even OFFERED to pay. maybe ricky would've turned his money down in the end. that was pretty annoying.
	__________________ They killed my sister because she asked: "Where is my vote?" http://sosiran.com/ http://tapeshhd.com/index.php

06-30-2008, 04:24 PM	#2
tdr Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 23, 2001 Posts: 1,454	I do think the Mertzes were in the wrong, in the normative sense, if not the legal. The extra money the Ricardos would get for subleasing would be because of their furnishings, though this is not gone into in detail, and (I presume, though I wouldn't know for sure) that the utility bills would be paid by the sublessors so they could retain all their accounts in good standing (in spite of Lucy's money mishandling in other eps ). So if they made a profit, per se, in subleasing, it wouldn't be too much, and may not help them come out even overall for the summer, with the expenses of being away (I also presume not everything would be covered by expense accounts). So the Mertzes reaction-- to refuse anyone to whom subleasing is proposed just to spite the Ricardos for "making money on our apartment"-- is immaturely vindictive. Consider this in light of their complete refusal to pay for even half the fuel on the auto trip to California, while they only agreed to permit a sublease on the apartment if they got half the extra rent, for which they didn't own half the furniture or pay half the utility bills (if any were paid by landlord, it wouldn't make any difference). Yep... greedy reaction(s).

06-30-2008, 04:35 PM	#3
Ireneparalegal LEGAL SPICE ;) Forum Legend Join Date: Jul 25, 2005 Location: OXNARD, CA - WHERE THE DALLAS COWBOYS TRAIN & PRACTICE Posts: 38,691	As I watched this episode this morning before leaving for the day, I couldn't help but think how greedy the Mertzes were myself. I too believe the extra money paid for the rent of the apartment by Mr. Beecher, in a sense was to cover the fact he would have a completely FURNISHED apartment. The Ricardos pay $150 rent simply for an UNFURNISHED apartment. They had to pay out of their own pocket to have the unit furnished, a refrigerator (I presume) and a washer (most definitely the Ricardos paid for that). Those are things Mr. Beecher would have use of. I am surprised the rental agent did not mention to the Ricardos if they had received permission from the landlords (the Mertzes) prior to subleasing the unit. Or, maybe she had mentioned it and the Ricardos "assumed" it would be ok with Fred and Ethel. The Mertzes were tight when it came to paying for 1/2 the gas on the California trip, which occurred after this episode. It would have been a good point by Ricky to say to Fred, "Do you recall how I shared the profit from the sublease on our apartment? I think it is only fair you share the gas on this trip." I still cannot fathom how Fred had the gall to go on trip as invited guests and refuse to even pay for some of the gas.

07-01-2008, 09:43 AM	#10
Lodee Member Senior Member Join Date: Jun 12, 2003 Posts: 1,562	Good points about the furniture. I think Fred and Ethel were wrong.

07-01-2008, 04:23 PM	#11
Madame X Member Senior Member Join Date: Sep 15, 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,831	I originally thought Lucy & Ricky were wrong, but upon thinking about it, what's the difference as long as the Mertzes got their rent? And didn't the couples originally make an agreement to split the profit? If that's true, then there shouldn't even have been an issue. I think the bigger issue was the Ricardos living with the Mertzes. Maybe that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Did the Ricardos totally mooch, or did they pay their way?