Binding promise to sign a lease? (deposit, non-refundable, legal, landlord)
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.
I read about a court case in California during the recession where the seller went after the buyer when they pulled out of the deal. His damages were in the 5-6 figures because of how fast the market was coming down.
Not if you actually read the OP, which is what my reply was based on. The LL had 2 months before any tenant was to move in. That is more than enough time to find another tenant so therefore he was not damaged in any way monetarily. So what do you propose is worth contacting an attorney and/or suing for? Seriously.
The OP leaves much unclear, so I reiterate what I wrote. Two months may or may not be enough time to find a tenant. But you don't know the efforts the landlord took, the rental market where the OP lives, etc. This would be a very fact-driven case, but what promissory estoppel cases aren't fact driven? I did, however, provide an example where the theory of promissory estoppel could apply. You should really refrain of assuming that you know all of the facts when you don't.
The OP leaves much unclear, so I reiterate what I wrote. Two months may or may not be enough time to find a tenant. But you don't know the efforts the landlord took, the rental market where the OP lives, etc. This would be a very fact-driven case, but what promissory estoppel cases aren't fact driven? I did, however, provide an example where the theory of promissory estoppel could apply. You should really refrain of assuming that you know all of the facts when you don't.
How is it the prospective tenants fault that 2 months isn’t enough time for the LL to find someone else? That seems like a LL problem to me. The rental market in the US is really good right now, if this person thinks two months isn’t enough time to find someone, there is obviously underlying issues with the rental or other factors at play.
Sorry, it’s highly unlikely the OP would be awarded anything for an email exchange months in advance.
The OP leaves much unclear, so I reiterate what I wrote. Two months may or may not be enough time to find a tenant. But you don't know the efforts the landlord took, the rental market where the OP lives, etc. This would be a very fact-driven case, but what promissory estoppel cases aren't fact driven? I did, however, provide an example where the theory of promissory estoppel could apply. You should really refrain of assuming that you know all of the facts when you don't.
And no where did I disagree with or negate the theory and/or legality of a promissory estoppel. My point was that it is hardly worth pursuing a lawsuit based on all of the "facts" the OP provided. The LL is going to have to wait anyway to see if they can rent that apt in the next 2 months before they could even begin to consider possibly pursuing anything. Sure, the LL can run to an attorney right now and say they want to sue but it is nothing but a waste of time and money at this stage of the game because they have no idea whether they can get it rented in the next 2 months or not. So sure, go ahead and waste a lot of valuable time and money if you so choose.
Again, my opinion still stands and that is to just suck it up and move on.
How is it the prospective tenants fault that 2 months isn’t enough time for the LL to find someone else? That seems like a LL problem to me. The rental market in the US is really good right now, if this person thinks two months isn’t enough time to find someone, there is obviously underlying issues with the rental or other factors at play.
Sorry, it’s highly unlikely the OP would be awarded anything for an email exchange months in advance.
While I don't know if the prospective tenant would or would not be responsible here (again, much more needs to be known), I already provided an example where the prospective tenant could be responsible in my original post. For the sake of argument, though, if, for instance, the LL in question here relied on the promise in the OP that the lease would be agreed to for a move in date two months in the future, and, as a result, turned down another prospective tenant who then went on to sign another lease elsewhere in a slow rental market, there could be a case. Of course, I only mention such a hypothetical to explain how the principle could work, not to suggest that this is the fact pattern in the OP. As I've mentioned already, the OP leaves much unanswered.
The US is a large country, with thousands of cities, communities, townships, rental markets, etc. The fact that the rental market is strong in one location or even throughout much/most of the country, does not mean that it is strong in the case of the OP. It may be, which would work against the argument of applying the principle of promissory estoppel, or it may not be.
Thus, I will reiterate what I've been saying: people should stop behaving as if they know all of the facts in this case when they clearly don't.
Perhaps it is highly unlikely that the OP would be awarded anything (I don't know). But perhaps not. There's still much to be known and I caution others from painting this like a black and white case.
And no where did I disagree with or negate the theory and/or legality of a promissory estoppel. My point was that it is hardly worth pursuing a lawsuit based on all of the "facts" the OP provided. The LL is going to have to wait anyway to see if they can rent that apt in the next 2 months before they could even begin to consider possibly pursuing anything. Sure, the LL can run to an attorney right now and say they want to sue but it is nothing but a waste of time and money at this stage of the game because they have no idea whether they can get it rented in the next 2 months or not. So sure, go ahead and waste a lot of valuable time and money if you so choose.
Again, my opinion still stands and that is to just suck it up and move on.
And my point is that it is premature to come to such a conclusion precisely because of the limited fact pattern.
Under a situation most favorable to the LL, however, the LL would not have to wait two months to try to rent out the property before having a case. Consider the following hypothetical, for instance: the LL, in a slow rental market (as an example), received two offers, one described in the OP to move in two months later for a lease period of one year and another from a second prospective tenant to move in immediately but for a period of 8 months. Based on the promise from the OP, the LL decided to deny the offer to move in immediately (that person has now found another place, and is not able to rent the apartment from the OP now that the first prospective tenant has backed out) and was left with an empty apartment in what otherwise would've been filled if the LL didn't turn down the other prospective tenant's offer because of the LL's reliance on the first prospective tenant's promise. If in a promissory estoppel state/jurisdiction, the LL could very well have a case under such a fact pattern. Of course, I'm not saying that this is what happened; again, much is unknown based on the OP. But things are not as black and white as some make them out to be in this thread. That's my point.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 05-27-2018 at 05:09 PM..
And my point is that it is premature to come to such a conclusion based on the limited fact pattern.
Under a situation most favorable to the LL, however, the LL would not have to wait two months to try to rent out the property before having a case. Consider the following hypothetical, for instance: the LL, in a slow rental market (as an example), received two offers, one described in the OP to move in two months later for a lease period of one year and another from a second prospective tenant to move in immediately but for a period of 8 months. Based on the promise from the OP, the LL decided to deny the offer to move in immediately (that person has now found another place, and is not able to rent the apartment from the OP now that the first prospective tenant has backed out) and was left with an empty apartment in what otherwise would've been filled if the LL didn't turn down the other prospective tenant's offer because of the LL's reliance on the first prospective tenant's promise. If in a promissory estoppel state/jurisdiction, the LL could very well have a case under such a fact pattern. Of course, I'm not saying that this is what happened; again, much is unknown based on the OP. But things are not as black and white as some make them out to be in this thread. That's my point.
And that is your opinion and your opinion only, just as everyone else has expressed their own opinions. So, of course this is not a 100% cut and dry situation with only one option. You can provide any and every example you want to however, when all is said and done they are still just examples and opinions. It does not guarantee that it will necessarily work in the OP's favor and/or situation. Bottom line here is that the OP needs to choose the best option for themselves based on all responses provided and with (hopefully) the least amount of risk for themselves. Period.
And that is your opinion and your opinion only, just as everyone else has expressed their own opinions. So, of course this is not a 100% cut and dry situation with only one option. You can provide any and every example you want to however, when all is said and done they are still just examples and opinions. It does not guarantee that it will necessarily work in the OP's favor and/or situation. Bottom line here is that the OP needs to choose the best option for themselves based on all responses provided and with (hopefully) the least amount of risk for themselves. Period.
Its an illustration detailing how detrimental reliance could work in a similar situation with a fact pattern most favorable to the LL. As I mentioned previously, I am not arguing that this is what occurred (as I mentioned, I cannot say that as I do not know the facts). The problem is that others have written statements unequivocally holding that the LL does not and cannot have a case as there was no "contract." I merely cautioned that such statements are premature and/or wrong given that they fail to take into account the principle of promissory estoppel and the fact that the OP does not paint a full picture of the facts. Period. This is not a controversial statement, which is why I'm puzzled by the push back I'm getting here from some.
I'm not in the legal or real estate fields, so I have no legal advice to offer.
But I noticed we're seeing a paraphrasing of the prospective tenant's language rather than his or her exact words ("provided that the lease was sent along shortly, and that they were no longer looking at other properties" is third person; people speak about themselves in the first person using "I" or "we," so we do not have the prospective tenant's exact words).
Is it possible the propspective tenant meant the "no longer looking" part as a second provision in the "provided..." phrase, whereas the prospective landlord interpreted it as a separate statement, one of fact? (A contingent statement along the lines "provided...I am no longer looking at other properties" would mean something entirely different than a factual statement that "I am no longer looking at other properties.")
I don't understand how this this conversation is still going. This "prospective tenant" didn't even sign a lease agreement. You want him to agree to lease terms that aren't even put forth for him to review?
Even if the landlord in this situation did have damages and had the rental on the market for 10 years looking for a new tenant, there's no way he can compel someone to sign a lease on a simple back and forth correspondence through e-mail. That's why we have contracts so everything is laid out very succinctly and money changing hands to lock in the contract so that if they reneg there is at least some skin in the game for them.
All this talk about hypotheticals and what is "technically correct" is pretty pointless. I've been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have never seen a judge in landlord/tenant proceedings find in favor of the landlord in this type of situation. Mostly because landlords don't waste their time trying to go after someone who may or may not even have money.
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.
