Am I required to fix with similar amenities to what was broken?

[Matt Stoltz]

I recently have a new tenant, and when rehabbing I installed a bathroom mirror with a backlight, that had a glowing ring on the mirror that is used to turn the mirror on/off. After a few months, the tenant has reached out saying that the glowing ring no longer turns on, and is stating that it is no longer functional. However the light still turns on. 

1. I would argue that the small glowing ring, isn't necessary to fix as long as the light still turns on and functions normally. 

2. Could I simply replace that mirror with a normal mirror if she wishes it to be replaced? Or am I required to install a similar mirror with the backlight? 

Thanks in advance for your input. 

[JD Martin]

The lesson here is not to use specialty things like that in a rehab. Then you wouldn't be in the position one way or the other. In general you would replace like for like, since the expectation was that the tenant was renting the material thing they saw when you advertised it for rent. The exception to that would be if you listed it as not maintained in the lease or if your best efforts prevented you from going like to like and thus you had to go reasonable equivalent. In other words, if the light with the glow ring is discontinued, or now costs 500% more than it used to, it would be unreasonable for you to replace like with like because the primary function of the object is the mirror and the light, not the glow ring, and no court would find in the tenant's favor if it were litigated (no one is going to litigate over a mirror).