Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by awkwarddaturtle 3269 days ago
No. Suh kept changing the terms of the deal.

> If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.

She did cancel it. After Suh kept changing the terms. The deal was for 2 people. Then Suh added a few more people. Then added a few more dogs.

Sure, the racist language wasn't called for but Suh was in the wrong.
1 comments
rhcom2 3269 days ago
Suh changed the deal and got confirmation that Barker accepted the changes. Suh asked, Barker said yes for an extra $50 and then Barker exploded on her when she got here. Barker is in no way the victim here. Sure maybe Suh was a high maintenance renter, but she didn't do anything wrong.

This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt:

"When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca...

link
masonic 3269 days ago 

  according to screenshots of their text messages
Which the Guardian does not show at all, and no source that I can find has published a complete, unedited account of the text exchange.
link
rhcom2 3269 days ago
Here: https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/

I don't see a spoiled brat. Why is it so hard to believe that Suh wasn't in the wrong?

link