Billing damage at cost vs selling at price
A tenant who breaks a glass should pay what the glass cost you, not what you would sell it for. The platform keeps the two apart with two buttons, and the P&L shows the difference.
On this page
Two buttons, two linesWhy keep them apartDamage that is not stockAgainst the deposit insteadTwo buttons, two lines
Sold to tenant records a sale at the selling price. The invoice line reads "Bottled water ×2". The P&L credits the sale under extras and charges the cost under stock consumed; the difference is margin. Damaged · bill at cost records a loss at the item's cost. The invoice line reads "Damage · drinking glass ×2 · at cost". The P&L charges the cost under stock consumed and credits exactly the same amount under recoveries; margin is zero.
Why keep them apart
Fairness first: a tenant should make you whole, not make you a profit, on something they broke — and a charge at cost with the receipt behind it ends most arguments before they start. Then the books: recoveries are not sales, and a P&L that mixes them overstates how well the minibar is doing.
Damage that is not stock
A cracked tile, a burnt socket: not inventory items. That is a ticket closed with a cost, then billed to the tenant or held against the deposit. Same principle — at cost, with the contractor's receipt.
Against the deposit instead
Mid-tenancy, bill it. At move-out, deduct it. Both buttons offer both. The deductions statement at move-out lists each damage line with its cost and, where there is one, the photo from inspection.
Related
Describes the platform as it is today. Something out of date? Tell us. · help 0.12.3