"Thacker said the responsibility of installing the sprinklers or getting the building up to code lies with the [building] owner."

Now is that actually in the lease he signed or is that just what he feels should be the case? I don't know, the author of this article never bothered verify what language exists in Thacker's lease that supports his claim.

Now I'm sure most people sitting there reading those last two sentences are going "Why would you even ask that? Obviously it's the landlords responsibility to install the sprinkler's. Are you insane?"

Well here's the thing, most people do not understand the difference between a commercial lease a residential lease. Most people hearing this story will view it through the lens of a residential lease. They will assume all the protections that are there for individuals renting a space as their home apply ... THEY DON'T! A commercial lease is a completely different monster.

The responsibility for building maintenance, upkeep, code requirements etc. in a commercial lease is entirely dependent on the terms of that lease. And it is extremely common for the business renting the space to have to shoulder significant portions of those responsibilities.

I find this articling omitting key facts at best and a misleading at worst.

​

Edit: If there is language in his lease that says the sprinkler code requirements are the landlords responsibility, then he should be taking some sort of legal action. That's why leases and contracts exist right? To hold other parties accountable. The fact that he isn't taking any legal action, seems to suggest that it is indeed his responsibility in the lease.