1

Player 1 has landed on Player 2's property and cannot afford the rent. Can Player 2 accept a property with money to settle the debt?

Example: Player 1 owes the rent of 500, they have 400 and a property worth 100 (according to the bank). Can Player 2 accept the money and the property to settle that debt?

This could be considered a trade and it the official rules don't explicitly restrict the time at which a trade can be completed. (However, since it could be considered a trade, Player 2 could consider the property to be worth what they want [and therefore worthless] to bankrupt the Player 1)

As a family, we have always played it so that the property is worth the equivalent of its face value. We chose this because it reflects the "real world" in a more accurate way.

However, after re-reading the rules, taking them at very face value, you should be bankrupt the moment that you cannot afford the rent after mortgaging and selling houses (if by doing that it will cover the rent).

I'm now more on the side of bankrupting without allowing for trading. However, we've been keeping high scores since 2002, it might not be worth it.

Summary: When a player cannot pay rent with money, mortgages and buildings, the rules can be interpreted in 4 ways:

  • the player is bankrupt immediately.
  • the player may trade with the other players, except the creditor.
  • the player may trade with any other player.
  • the player may use the face value of the card to pay towards the debt.
Improve this question
7
  • The fourth option is neither in the rules nor a reflection of the real world (if you are known to be desperate for cash, you can't expect to receive normal price for what you sell). Is your house rule that the creditor can accept the normal value (in which case it is the same as option 3) or that he must? – Tim Lymington Dec 24 '15 at 0:18
  • @Gendolkari I would argue that it is not a duplicate as it extends the trading to the debtor also. – Panda TG Attwood Dec 24 '15 at 9:45
  • @TimLymington You're right about that. I think in general it is that we must accept it at face value which is not part of the rules. – Panda TG Attwood Dec 24 '15 at 9:48
  • @Thomas'Panda'Attwood I could be wrong, but the way I read it, both questions are really asking "can a player who cannot afford to pay his debts still trade with people to get the money to pay them, or does he immediately lose?" – GendoIkari Dec 24 '15 at 16:21
  • 1
    I think it's pretty clear that this is a duplicate. If you can trade with a third party, you definitely can trade with your debtor. The idea that you might not be able to trade with your debtor but could trade with someone OTHER than your debtor is a very weak argument. – corsiKa Dec 24 '15 at 18:05
0

What's unclear about the rules:

You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the Bank. ....

... A bankrupt player must immediately retire from the game. The last player left in the game wins.

Unless one can find a way to clear the entire debt while retaining an asset of at least $1 value, thus avoiding bankruptcy, the bankrupt player is out of the game; just as the rule stipulates.

Part of the beauty of the game is the simplicity of the rules as written. Imagining considerations that are not actually in the rules is what leads to games dragging on for hours; I for one would rather concede a lost game and get started on a second.

Improve this answer
7
  • 3
    What's unclear is if "you owe more money than you can pay" includes the right to make trades in order to raise the money to pay. In other words "can pay" is unclear. "I can pay IF someone agrees to buy this property." See the linked duplicate for more discussion. – GendoIkari Dec 24 '15 at 2:34
  • An asset of $1? Or simple no debts. You aren't bankrupt if you have $0 but also owe $0. – corsiKa Dec 24 '15 at 2:45
  • 1
    After re-reading the rules, I now agree with what you're saying, especially as it reduces the time of the games (although, we have never had an issue with that). However, the rules don't make that explicit enough, as Gendolkari explains. – Panda TG Attwood Dec 24 '15 at 9:54
  • @corsiKlauseHoHoHo: Yes, I have corrected the wording to properly represent that. Not quite sure why I thought the more verbose wording was better. – Forget I was ever here Dec 24 '15 at 17:23
  • Unfortunately the rules are far from clear about exactly what you can do in your attempt to avoid bankruptcy. You can sell houses and mortgage properties (because that is mentioned); thereafter there is a slippery slope of selling properties, selling other assets (perhaps agreeing not to demand rent next time round), and making various deals with the creditor. None of these are explicitly allowed or forbidden; which are permited presumably depends in house rules. – Tim Lymington Dec 28 '15 at 23:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.