Landloard made a mistake in lease renewal letter. chance to leave early? (deposit, renew)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) They sent you a letter stating to renew your lease or vacate by 5/31
2) You responded to their letter (in writing, I assume) stating that you would not be renewing and would vacate.
If this matter went before a judge, I'm pretty confident that he would agree that what happened constituted a change in the rental agreement agreed upon by both parties, making it 100% legal. The fact that they did this in error would likely be considered irrelevant.
If you really want to press it (and assuming you have supporting documentation) you can talk to a lawyer and try to play hardball. Whether it's worth it is up to you.
I totally disagree for the reasons already stated in this thread.
I totally disagree for the reasons already stated in this thread.
I don't, especially when you apply the least sophisticated consumer principle to the issue. The least sophisticated consumer is going to assume that the letter they received is a proposed change to the lease and by accepting one of the choices the lease is now legally modified with both parties bound by the new terms. I fail to see any legal grounds the landlord could use to their advantage.
Now the landlord can try to claim error, but I don't see that argument flying. The court is going to hold them to a higher standard than they would the consumer, and even more so if this is a property management group of some kind.
I don't, especially when you apply the least sophisticated consumer principle to the issue. The least sophisticated consumer is going to assume that the letter they received is a proposed change to the lease and by accepting one of the choices the lease is now legally modified with both parties bound by the new terms. I fail to see any legal grounds the landlord could use to their advantage.
Now the landlord can try to claim error, but I don't see that argument flying. The court is going to hold them to a higher standard than they would the consumer, and even more so if this is a property management group of some kind.
One should never make assumptions. A contractual agreement can only be changed with a contract change signed by BOTH parties. One person writes one thing and signs it, another person writes a response and signs it - but that does not legally constitute a contractual change in any way, shape or form since BOTH signatures have to be on the same document to effect a contractual change. I beg to continue to disagree.
Make no mistake about it, there are no assumptions here.
Quote:
A contractual agreement can only be changed with a contract change signed by BOTH parties. One person writes one thing and signs it, another person writes a response and signs it - but that does not legally constitute a contractual change in any way, shape or form since BOTH signatures have to be on the same document to effect a contractual change. I beg to continue to disagree.
Actually that is not true at all. There is nothing in common contract law that explicitly states that both parties must sign the changes, otherwise every credit card agreement in America would be void. Contract law on it's face boils down to one party making an offer and another party accepting or rejecting that offer, and applying the well established legal principle of the least sophisticated consumer it would not be a stretch to see the court siding with the OP on this issue.
I came by to make the points of "least sophisticated consumer" and "bona-fide error", but I see everyone else has already beat me to them. Remember that the law is never black-and-white, if-this-then-that. If it were, we wouldn't need judges and lawyers. I highly doubt that you'd be able to successfully argue an early release in court. Even if you tried, would the cost and time spent really be worth a two-months-early release? Bear in mind that if you're lucky, a small-claims case will take several weeks to move forward. It can easily take longer depending on the court's caseload.
One should never make assumptions. A contractual agreement can only be changed with a contract change signed by BOTH parties. One person writes one thing and signs it, another person writes a response and signs it - but that does not legally constitute a contractual change in any way, shape or form since BOTH signatures have to be on the same document to effect a contractual change. I beg to continue to disagree.
Your really stretching. According to this standard all the OP has to do is sign his name to the bottom of the notice and this "contractual change" is valid.
And a contractual change does not require signature by both parties only agreement. And the landlord sending the notice to vacate by a certain date and the tenant leaving by that date is clearly agreement. Verbal agreements are enforced by the courts all the time, and have been for quite a while
Approximately 90%+ of the time, I agree with STT; however, not this time. I think Bosco has the right logic.
The LL sent, in writing, a change to the lease. Tenant accepted in writing. Lease modified.
A lease is a writing showing a "meeting of the minds" -- an agreement of 2 or more parties. In this case, tenant accepted the modification (for whatever reason he had to move out early).
It would then fall upon the landlord to prove that it was harmed by action of the tenant. Since the landlord now has 2 months to find a replacement tenant, I think that proof would be difficult to come by. Any damages the landlord would suffer are proximately caused by the landlord's own action.
At any rate, LL would mostly likely take this issue to small claims (or housing) court. I can almost hear Judge Judy's voice in my head telling the landlord that it was their mistake and to "suck it up".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Let's look at the facts here.
1) They sent you a letter stating to renew your lease or vacate by 5/31
2) You responded to their letter (in writing, I assume) stating that you would not be renewing and would vacate.
If this matter went before a judge, I'm pretty confident that he would agree that what happened constituted a change in the rental agreement agreed upon by both parties, making it 100% legal. The fact that they did this in error would likely be considered irrelevant.
If you really want to press it (and assuming you have supporting documentation) you can talk to a lawyer and try to play hardball. Whether it's worth it is up to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008
Your really stretching. According to this standard all the OP has to do is sign his name to the bottom of the notice and this "contractual change" is valid.
And a contractual change does not require signature by both parties only agreement. And the landlord sending the notice to vacate by a certain date and the tenant leaving by that date is clearly agreement. Verbal agreements are enforced by the courts all the time, and have been for quite a while
Approximately 90%+ of the time, I agree with STT; however, not this time. I think Bosco has the right logic.
The LL sent, in writing, a change to the lease. Tenant accepted in writing. Lease modified.
A lease is a writing showing a "meeting of the minds" -- an agreement of 2 or more parties. In this case, tenant accepted the modification (for whatever reason he had to move out early).
It would then fall upon the landlord to prove that it was harmed by action of the tenant. Since the landlord now has 2 months to find a replacement tenant, I think that proof would be difficult to come by. Any damages the landlord would suffer are proximately caused by the landlord's own action.
At any rate, LL would mostly likely take this issue to small claims (or housing) court. I can almost hear Judge Judy's voice in my head telling the landlord that it was their mistake and to "suck it up".
I think the assumption that the LL sent a "change to the lease agreement" is not correct. The letter did not state it was a change to the lease agreement. Again, intent is important. In a court, it would matter that the letter did not intend to change the lease agreement. If the tenant wanted out early and this went to court, she would have to prove in sending the letter when they did, that that the management company intended to change the date of the end of her lease.
For technicalities, I think to some extent, it would matter how the letter was worded. The form notice requests I've gotten have said something like "According to our records, your lease ends XX/XX/XXXX." If the letter refers back to the original lease, I don't think you could argue that the letter represents an amendment to said lease. Such a letter acknowledges the original lease's validity, and the fact that the letter was sent with an incorrect date is a demonstrated clerical error, not a contractual amendment. Our legal system doesn't generally rule in the favor of clerical errors. (At least, not intentionally. )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
