The morality is that he got exactly what she offered and exactly what he asked and paid for, and the arrangement was perfectly consensual. It would be immoral for him to demand more, without additional payment.
The morality is already clearly established: in exchange for a very small monthly sum, you get the property when the owner dies. The property may be a dedicated rental unit already, so whether or not the owner lives there has no bearing. So it's not just _within_ the contract, it's the _purpose_ of the contract.
>The morality is already clearly established: in exchange for a very small monthly sum, you get the property when the owner dies.
That's, again, the contract. Seems some people can't tell between legal and moral, unless we talk about the 70s and segregation or something like that...
No, I (and presumably the other posters) can tell the difference - I just disagree on the morality, partly because I think the legal aspects are related to the moral aspects.
The guy purchased the right to the house once the current owner dies, but you believe it's immoral for her to continue living in it, or renting it out, or loaning it to friends, while she is alive. I think it's immoral to demand the house while she's alive, since that wasn't the deal.
Sometimes legality and morality are widely separated, but here they seem related.
It is a lottery with two participants that willingly took part in it. She won big, but if she had died the day after the contract was signed, he would have won big: he would have gotten the house for about $500. Would you suggest he should have paid her inheritance a lump sum if that would have happened?
He would have had to make a down-payment on the house too. You pay e.g. half the total payment up front and then the remainder in monthly installments. Still, it would have been a quarter of the retail price, not half, in that case.
You'd think the contract would say that in addition to being alive you have to actually live in the house as well. Otherwise you could just sublet it out and have someone else pay you for it while you live somewhere else. Seems kind of counter to the intention of the idea.