Any way to enforce a verbal offer to lease?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

Agreed. Np here. But OP won’t get specific performance (the apartment) - best she can hope to win is some money in a few months, and that’s not really helpful when she needs somewhere to live in two weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

[Anonymous]

This was us a few weeks ago. We thought our job was having us move, but then the plans were canceled so we need to stay in the home we own.

We had already interviewed a few people to rent the home and had one party in mind. They had not applied yet or pay for a credit/background check.

If you haven’t exchange any money yet and have no signed contract, there’s no way you force performance. At least not here in the US. You ain’t getting this house. Move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

Then you say, first come first served, or, I won't hold it for you. You don't make arrangements for someone to come over and then just take someone else who can come first. That's so blatantly selfish and inconsiderate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

Then you say, first come first served, or, I won't hold it for you. You don't make arrangements for someone to come over and then just take someone else who can come first. That's so blatantly selfish and inconsiderate.

Uh, that's not the way it works.

Let's try a different approach. Target has 5 whizgigs for sale, one per customer. You want a whizgig really badly. So do 10 other people. The first 5 people to show up and pay for the whizgig get the whizgig. Person 6 does not get a whizgig and Target is not being blatantly selfish or inconsiderate. Target sold the whizgigs to the 5 people who got off their keisters and paid their pound of flesh for the product first.

OP, if you wanted the lease then you needed to get to the landlord, sign the paperwork and pay your deposit asap. Reading your posts it sounds like you lollygagged around so I can see why the landlord moved on to a different tenant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

Then you say, first come first served, or, I won't hold it for you. You don't make arrangements for someone to come over and then just take someone else who can come first. That's so blatantly selfish and inconsiderate.

Uh, that's not the way it works.

Let's try a different approach. Target has 5 whizgigs for sale, one per customer. You want a whizgig really badly. So do 10 other people. The first 5 people to show up and pay for the whizgig get the whizgig. Person 6 does not get a whizgig and Target is not being blatantly selfish or inconsiderate. Target sold the whizgigs to the 5 people who got off their keisters and paid their pound of flesh for the product first.

OP, if you wanted the lease then you needed to get to the landlord, sign the paperwork and pay your deposit asap. Reading your posts it sounds like you lollygagged around so I can see why the landlord moved on to a different tenant.

There are no agreements in that transaction. There is an agreement when someone asks if they can come Saturday and you say yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

Then you say, first come first served, or, I won't hold it for you. You don't make arrangements for someone to come over and then just take someone else who can come first. That's so blatantly selfish and inconsiderate.

OP, I sincerely ask - is this your first time ever trying to rent a place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

Then you say, first come first served, or, I won't hold it for you. You don't make arrangements for someone to come over and then just take someone else who can come first. That's so blatantly selfish and inconsiderate.

OP, I sincerely ask - is this your first time ever trying to rent a place?

LOL, I'm no the OP. I fell down this craigslist rabbit hole. Help, I've fallen and I can't get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

OP here -

The home is owner occupied. Is there any court motion that would essentially force the owner to move out like they said they would and rent to me? I just want them to be held to their end of their verbal agreement. I do have the text messages to back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

OP here -

The home is owner occupied. Is there any court motion that would essentially force the owner to move out like they said they would and rent to me? I just want them to be held to their end of their verbal agreement. I do have the text messages to back it up.

No. Hopefully you spent the day looking for a new place because you’re not moving into the place you’re asking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

OP here -

The home is owner occupied. Is there any court motion that would essentially force the owner to move out like they said they would and rent to me? I just want them to be held to their end of their verbal agreement. I do have the text messages to back it up.

Nope. Not even in DC will they toss a home owner out of their own house for a potential tenant who has paid $0 and has no signed lease. Text message agreement is not worth anything.

Sorry, you are not getting into those good nearby schools. Find another home in the area.

Or did you make the mistake of already registering your kids with this address?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

OP here -

The home is owner occupied. Is there any court motion that would essentially force the owner to move out like they said they would and rent to me? I just want them to be held to their end of their verbal agreement. I do have the text messages to back it up.

OP, this isn’t going to happen. You should focus on finding a new place. Forcing a homeowner out of their home isn’t going to lead to a good tenant-landlord relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So so much bad info on here

First the statute of Frauds says all real estate contracts for a term of 1 year or more must be in writing. Second, a text exchange is a writing and is likely enforceable. Third the consideration is the mutual exchange of promises in this instance (ie party 1 will lease the property, party 2 will pay rent).

Of all the exam responses, this is the top one

OP here -

The home is owner occupied. Is there any court motion that would essentially force the owner to move out like they said they would and rent to me? I just want them to be held to their end of their verbal agreement. I do have the text messages to back it up.

FIND.ANOTHER.PLACE. There is no court motion that will kick a homeowner out of his/her home because you had a conversation with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its like when I post something on Craigslist on Monday and someone says immediately they can they can come on Saturday to buy it. I tell them sure. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, someone emails me and says they will be at my house in an hour. I'm going with the second buyer every single time -- the person who completes the transaction fastest always wins.

Owner had no clue if you would flake, and so when someone else came along who could act faster than you, the owner went with them. It might suck but the owner didn't do anything illegal.

You are not good for your word.

Well, neither are most Craigslist shoppers. The landlord here had no clue if the OP would flake. It could have been the case that the OP delayed the lease signing in the hopes that she could find a better place -- the landlord just has no way of knowing. The landlord needed to get the place rented and so likely went with someone who provided that certainty faster, not with someone who might back out.

Then you say, first come first served, or, I won't hold it for you. You don't make arrangements for someone to come over and then just take someone else who can come first. That's so blatantly selfish and inconsiderate.

Uh, that's not the way it works.

Let's try a different approach. Target has 5 whizgigs for sale, one per customer. You want a whizgig really badly. So do 10 other people. The first 5 people to show up and pay for the whizgig get the whizgig. Person 6 does not get a whizgig and Target is not being blatantly selfish or inconsiderate. Target sold the whizgigs to the 5 people who got off their keisters and paid their pound of flesh for the product first.

OP, if you wanted the lease then you needed to get to the landlord, sign the paperwork and pay your deposit asap. Reading your posts it sounds like you lollygagged around so I can see why the landlord moved on to a different tenant.

There are no agreements in that transaction. There is an agreement when someone asks if they can come Saturday and you say yes.

And if someone comes on Friday, then the landlord can take that offer instead. First come, first served baby.