Under the circumstances, plaintiffs were not in default for failure to finish repairing the dam and the spillway within the 30-day period of time prescribed by the contract. See, e.g., Teel v. Steinbach Estate et al., 135 Or. 501, 296 P. 1069 (1931) (the tenant could expect the landlord to make only such repairs as would reasonably be made to an old building); Ball v. Day, 57 Or. App. 384, 644 P.2d 649 (1982) (although the landlord assumed the duty to make extraordinary repairs, the landlord had no obligation to repair conditions caused by the tenant's faulty installation). We turn to the claim that plaintiffs were in default because of the pest infestation.