>>I agree. Personally, I think the tenant got royally rogered in this case - but that doesn't mean that I don't see the contract law logic of the situation. I also think it's ridiculous that there has to be a law to protect the tenant in cases like this. I imagine that, back in the day, the assumption was that the person taking over the mortgage on the house would show the tenant a wee bit of human decency and either 1) given reasonable notice to vacate, or 2) continue the existing contract with the tenant - especially if the tenant has taken reasonable care with the property.
>>
>>But that's just me.
>
>It would be nice, but in this day and age, laws may be the only practical way to go. You just can't count on 'niceness' any more.

Once upon a time you could count on the niceness of robber barons. All gone now... except the system still preserves their accumulation.