Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: (Using a throwaway, hope that doesn't violate the rules of the sub)  


Background: my partner and I moved to a new rented apartment about 8 months ago. When we agreed to take the place, the landlord committed to fixing a number of defects with the property (leaking pipes, dodgy electrics, cracked tiles, mould, old fittings). However, since we moved in, he's been a ghost. We made efforts to work with him on these issues, getting quotes from multiple contractors, offering to foot the bill for more cosmetic fixes if he would step up and deal with the critical quality of life issues.  


Eventually, we lost patience and decided to move out. However, since we're breaking the lease early, the landlord has told us that we are still responsible for paying rent until a new tenant is found to replace us (this sucks, but as far as we can tell, the law is on his side). Now we've advertised the flat again, and have been showing it to new prospective tenants.  


The problem is that my partner thinks that we should be honest with them about our poor relationship with the landlord, whereas I think that by doing that all we would do is screw ourselves over by scaring off people who would take over the lease and get us out of this situation. Caveat emptor.

&amp;#x200B;

Am I being an asshole?

not wanting to warn prospective tenants about a bad landlord