Given the scenario, why would someone pay even a month's rent to take on a larger monthly expense going forward?
More concretely, let's say it costs $1,000 per month to the landlord and the tenant pays $500 per month. The landlord is losing $500 a month and wants to unload the place, so he offers the property to you, the tenant, for $500. But now you have to assume the $1,000 per month cost. What's in it for you to double your expenses?
That is unless the landlord continues to carry the $500 per month shortfall even after the sale. That would be a good deal for the tenant, but why would the landlord sell under that scenario? If you're paying $500 per month out of pocket either way, you may as well ride it out and hope things improve someday.
More concretely, let's say it costs $1,000 per month to the landlord and the tenant pays $500 per month. The landlord is losing $500 a month and wants to unload the place, so he offers the property to you, the tenant, for $500. But now you have to assume the $1,000 per month cost. What's in it for you to double your expenses?
That is unless the landlord continues to carry the $500 per month shortfall even after the sale. That would be a good deal for the tenant, but why would the landlord sell under that scenario? If you're paying $500 per month out of pocket either way, you may as well ride it out and hope things improve someday.