what happens legally If my landlord lied verbally about a clause in the contract before signing it Recently something happened that got me wondering about the legal implications of it. About a year an a half ago I moved to a flat in the UK. Of course there was a contract. There is a clause in the contract that states that the tenants are responsible of maintaining the quality of the items (listed) in the house and replacing them (unless there has been a fire). This is worded longer but has this information. When I was considering signing the contract, I read the clause and decided to ask the landlord what would happen if something breaks &quot;because is old&quot;. The conversation was more or less as follows: Seating in the Landlord's living room in his own house, me, my girlfriend, Landlord and his wife, reading the contract. Me: About this clause, what would happen if something breaks? Landlord: If it breaks... what do you mean? Me: Well, if the thing is old, sometimes they just break. Would you pay for it in that case? Landlord and wife, together: Yes, yes of course. We sign. Recently something broke (after 1.5 years) and we called the landlord. After about a month of doing technicians etc the result ended in needing to buy a new one. While discussing moderately about how long is taking to fix thing my landlord told us that we shouldn't complain, because he is paying for it, and we should be the ones paying. While asking why he says that if he mentioned that he would pay for it he said &quot;you should have read the contract, its in the contract that it is your responsibility to pay for it&quot;. It seems that nothing bad will happen, but I am curious about the legal implication if he decides to make us pay for it. We asked about it and he said it, but of course, its not literally written like that. However, one of the reasons we signed that contract was because of that verbal agreement (can it be called like that?). In British law, is there somehow a possibility that that conversation can be used to defend us? Or as it is not written is as if it didn't happened? Would this mean that a landlord could actually tell a lots of lies about a contract (for example to someone that has limited reading capabilities, or like me, someone that is not used to English law &quot;slang&quot; as its not their mother tongue) and &quot;cheat&quot; the tenant to sign? I guess one possible (and likely) answer to this is &quot;its the tenant responsibility to understand the contract, and the only things that apply are the ones in the contract&quot;. Disclaimer: I'm not looking for real legal advice, just curious on how far the law extends here.
It is the tenant's responsibility to understand the written contract. Oral statements about the contract do have to be consistent with the written contract (that is, in the context where you ask the landlord what a particular clause means before signing -- not in the case where you are modifying an existing contract). If I were renting a room and the contract says "Du må betale $1000 hver dag", which I don't understand because my Norwegian is terrible, I would ask about this, and the landlord might say that it means "You must pay $1000 every month", which could be a decent deal. Actually, the clause says "You must pay $1000 every day". When the reality of the situation becomes clear, then it is obvious that we didn't have an agreement in the first place. Perhaps he mis-spoke, or his English is as bad as my Norwegian, but I would not be held to rate in the written contract, assuming that I could back up my claim that he gave me that interpretation: the lease would probably be voided, as not an actual agreement. The underlying principle is that there has to be a "meeting of the minds" where the parties understand what they will get and what they must give, and there was a demonstrable failure of understanding. On the other hand, if I sign a contract without really reading it carefully, and there is a clause in English (which I speak) saying that I have to pay $1000 a day, but I didn't really think about the clause so that in a sense I didn't understand what I had agreed to, well, I may still be on the hook. (On the third hand, a court would probably say that's a ridiculous rent and void the contract on policy grounds). In general, "not my first language" is not a get-out-of-contract card, though attempts to trick people into signing documents in languages that they really have no understanding of won't be successful. Virtually nobody but a lawyer actually understands contractual language, yet contracts are enforced all the time. A contract can be explicitly modified by verbal agreement, or can be entirely verbal, but oral agreements face evidence problems, namely, what exactly did A and B say? It's scientifically well established that parties can be morally certain that the conversation went "A" (for one person) and "Not A" (for the other person). Using "could" rather than "would" in speech makes a huge difference in interpretation. There is a rule, the parol evidence rule, which essentially says that unless there is a good reason to not do so, the contract as written is what is enforced. Even if the conversation had been written into the contract, there's no basis in the contract for objectively determining whether a thing is old and "just broke". So even as an additional clause in the contract, it doesn't afford you a clear escape hatch. You might be able to prove with expert testimony that indeed the pipes had been corroding for a hundred years, and you could not have caused the pipes to burst.
Do I have any recourse for invalidating all or part of the contract? No. There is a presumption in contract law that when a contract is reduced to writing then what that writing says is what the parties agreed. Also, if you signed it, then you are legally stating: I read it, I understand it and I agree to it - don't sign things you don't understand. If your lawyer has produced something you don't understand then have them redraft it until you do. Would a successful suit against the lawyer for malpractice or negligence make any difference? No. A suit against you lawyer may get you damages from your lawyer but it will not affect the rights of third-parties. What is best practice for avoiding flawed contracts like this in the first place? Read and understand the contract. Educate yourself enough in the law so that you can do this. Your lawyer is there to give you professional advice; you are there to make your own decisions.
Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair. There is also an absolute right to enter in an emergency (such as fire). Note that the law does not require tenant permission (a landlord may obviously enter for any reason with permission): the law says when he may do so without permission. If the "viewing" is related to repairs, then you just have to accept it. However, "viewing" usually means "showing prospective new tenants". In that case, there is the 28 day end-of-tenancy entry right which, if you didn't omit anything, is not relevant. In light of the common law right to quiet enjoyment, you have the right to exclude the landlord (or anyone else) absent a statutorily expressed override. Permission can be inferred by word or action under common law, for example if a person appears at the door and you open it wide and step aside, you have implicitly granted permission even if you didn't say "I hereby permit". Explicitly denying permission (even once) eliminates any reasonable possibility of inferring permission. If you had gotten an email saying "we'll come by at 4:30" and you reply "Alrighteo, see you then", that can reasonably be interpreted as permission. If you do not reply, they cannot infer permission (obviously: X sending a message to Y does not entail that Y received or read the message). If a person does not have a right to enter property, then doing so by force constitutes trespass, which is plainly against the law.
I have read that Assured Shorthold Tenancies of less than 6 months are allowed, but you are not allowed to evict a tenant before 6 months. That applies only to section 21 (&quot;no fault&quot;) evictions. Specifically, according to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, a notice can't be served in the first 4 months of a tenancy (section 21(4B)), and can't take effect in the first 6 months (section 21(5)). Section 8 evictions, which require one or more of the reasons listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, do not have this restriction - though only some of them can be used during the fixed term part of the tenancy, and they must be listed in the tenancy agreement in order to be used in that way. Will I have to wait until he has actually left before I can arrange an AST with new tenants? Yes, but that's always true. It's very unwise for a new tenancy agreement to be signed until the previous tenants have moved out, because if they don't leave before the new agreement takes effect, the landlord is now committed to finding accommodation for the new tenants. This is why tenancy agreements are often only signed on the first day of the tenancy.
There's a lot of variables here, as many leases are built in different ways within the leeway allowed by law. You will want to contact a local lawyer to see how you can mitigate the damage to yourself, and contact your landlord and see if you can re-negotiate the lease. If the landlord doesn't want to re-negotiate, you're probably facing eviction if you can't come up with the full rent by yourself; many leases don't allow non-related adults to live on the premises if they're not on the lease (this can also result in eviction). However, your roommate will also get an eviction record and be responsible for any damages if the lease survives long enough to cause an eviction. Actually having a random person move in from Craigslist might also cause your roommate to suffer additional liability if they're not allowed to sublet their lease agreement, which many leases do not allow (landlords like knowing who's living on their properties). Having them move in might cause both you and your roommate to be evicted. You probably don't have any rights to sue your roommate until actual damages occur (in other words, after you've already been evicted). You should speak with your landlord as soon as possible to get a new lease. An eviction record will cause problems for your roommate as well, so you might urge them to consider staying long enough to get things sorted out legally. When you ask your landlord, simply ask something like, "My roommate wants to move out. What are my options?" They will tell you what they are willing to accept.
Common Law Contracts Contracts do not have to be signed. They do not even have to be written down. In fact, the overwhelming majority of contracts entered into are not written &ndash; when did you last sign a contract to buy a cup of coffee? See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? A contract is an enforceable agreement. It exists from the moment that agreement was reached irrespective of who signed what. Putting a signature on a contract is evidence of the contract: it is not the contract. Real Estate Having said this, real estate law is an area where legislators can't leave the common law alone and is generally subject to specific regulation. For example, it is quite common that real estate contracts must be in writing and are unenforceable if they are not. However, while the contract may not be enforceable, the promise might be. Promissory Estoppel The common law as we know it today is actually derived from two different stands of English law: the actual common law as decided by the magistrates, and equity law as decided by the King/Queen in the courts of Chancellery. In the absence of a contract there is nothing the common law can enforce. However, principles of equity law are grounded in notions of fairness (or equity &ndash; see how that works?). If I were to make a promise to you (that was not a contract) and you took action on the strength of my promise that would be to your detriment and I knew you were doing that: promissory estoppel would prevent me from breaking my promise or allow you to recover damages (more or less &ndash; in practice a promissory estoppel suit is usually an act of desperation). Your lease When was the contract formed? If the agreement had been reached and the written lease simply documented that agreement without adding anything new, then the contract is already on foot and both Aaron and Bob are bound. If agreement has not been reached or there were additional terms in the document (which there almost certainly would be) then by putting forward the document Aaron is making an offer to Bob. By extending the offer, Aaron knows that he cannot lease the premises to someone else until the offer has been rejected or he withdraws the offer: this is true irrespective of whether Aaron has signed or not. If Bob accepts that offer without changing it, then the contract exists from the moment of Bob's acceptance irrespective of whether he has signed. If Bob makes changes (other than inconsequential ones) then he has made a counteroffer: the ball is now in Aaron's court and the original offer is dead. Promissory estoppel can arise if, for example, the negotiations ends with Bob saying, "I'm looking at several places but yours would be the one I want if you were to change the carpets," Aaron send Bob carpet samples, Bob picks one, Aaron makes the change, and Bob then walks away.
If you want to be argumentative about it, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. This also means the burden of production is, too. Underlying the whole matter is a claim that you've engaged in &quot;breach of contract,&quot; namely failing to pay rent. Your legal obligation is to not engage in contract fraud nor breach of contract. You are to exercise due diligence in resolving any breach of contract. You may ask the lessor to provide evidence in support of the claim while admitting that you have difficulty looking that far back into the issue. The idea here is to &quot;work with&quot; the lessor rather than immediately taking an adversarial stance. Normal people become very disgruntled by those taking an immediate adversarial approach rather than seeking to work with the other person to resolve the dispute.
No, for two reasons. First, your question seems to assume that the current level of (1) vacancy, and (2) rent, will continue unchanged for the indefinite future. A lot of people thought that in 1989, and 2000, and 2007, just before the last three Bay Area housing crashes. The purpose of a long-term lease is to create certainty for the lessor. As the lessee, you are on the hook for whatever damages you cause by breaking the lease. As you say, right now, the complex will probably be able to mitigate fairly easily. That will change next time the market crashes. If you break the lease, you're gambling that it's still 1987...but there's a chance it's 1989 instead. If it is, you are on the hook, because the landlord exchanged a lower rent for certainty. Second, you're thinking about what the landlord will be able to prove in court. This is almost never the most helpful thing to be thinking in a situation like this. If you get to the point where your lawyer is having to stand up in court and argue about the reasonableness of the landlord's efforts, you've already spent more than two weeks' rent (even at Bay Area prices) paying the lawyer. Realistically, if the landlord says it took six weeks to rent, and sends you a bill for six weeks, the cheapest thing for you to do will, probably, be to pay it.