Term length, who pays for what operating expenses, start date and, of course, monthly rent, were all factors up for negotiation and compromise. But compromise wasn't part of the plan apparently, for this would-be tenant. Rather than respond to my owner's counter offer, the tenant changed his offer no less than three times, accepting it once and then backtracking twice more.
What happens when a seller and a buyer, a landlord and a tenant, have completely different negotiation styles and philosophies? In this case, it all fell apart. The owner couldn't get past the tenant's inability to honor an accepted deal or-- if he had a change of heart-- try and reach a compromise that could work for both parties. The tenant wanted what he wanted and felt it was a-ok to start from scratch with his new needs. In Greenwich right now, it's a renters market. And the renter played that card.
Was there any hope of bringing this deal together? If the owner truly wanted to rent the property, he might have put aside whether the multiple re-trades were in good form or not and just focus on the final offer. And the tenant might have stepped back to understand the negotiating style of the owner and try to adjust a bit.
Compromise... it always seems to come down to that.