Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honorably people don't behave this way. Did you not know?

Honorable people put down a deposit and don't waste anyone's time.

The comment was about CRAIGSLIST.

As a landlord, I assume the candidates moved on to their next search if I don't hear from the potential tenant with in 24 hours. I had held my first rental for a potential tenant for over a week because their agent kept giving me excuses for why they missed several appointments for lease signing.
Finally, the agent told me that his clients decided on another house.
The landlord and tenant are both looking for the best match and want to protect their own interests.
As a tenant looking for a place to rent, you may wonder if the next list has better price, more spaces, or in a better location.
As a landlord, you want to sign a lease and collect deposit as soon as possible. I was burn once and will not trust anyone who verbally promises anything.
Sorry, OP. Your potential landlord moved on so should you.

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be common curtesy from the landlord to let OP know that they took a better or different offer for the house? Assuming there were verbal plans made for OP to sign the lease and pay the deposit.

Yes, it would be. Unfortunately, it seems like that courtesy has fallen by the wayside in many industries -- companies don't respond to job applicants, contractors ghost people after submitting bids when the homeowner then wants to proceed, etc. You can always try to prod once or twice -- which the OP seems to have done -- but after that, you just need to move on.

Wouldn't it be common curtesy from the landlord to let OP know that they took a better or different offer for the house? Assuming there were verbal plans made for OP to sign the lease and pay the deposit.

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

Not helpful though because the lease was likely for more than a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honorably people don't behave this way. Did you not know?

Honorable people put down a deposit and don't waste anyone's time.

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.

Hard to see you getting specific performance here.

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

There's essentially zero chance that the text messages are detailed enough to constitute an agreement to lease in writing to the point that a court would throw an owner out of their house to let OP have it. Besides, OP admits that they needed to see the owner again to pay a deposit that (they did not), and execute a lease (that they did not). Pretty clear that neither the owner or OP thought they had an enforceable agreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if the house is owner-occupied, why don't you knock on the door and say you just want to make sure you're still on to move in in two weeks?

Yes, try this.

Haha, yeah sure, if text messages don't work, just show up at their front door. Like that will turn out well.

It will be fine. Op doesn’t have the time to find some place else so she just needs to enforce her verbal contract. I’m sure the home owner will agree once Op shows up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if the house is owner-occupied, why don't you knock on the door and say you just want to make sure you're still on to move in in two weeks?

Yes, try this.

Haha, yeah sure, if text messages don't work, just show up at their front door. Like that will turn out well.

A court is also really never going to order specific performance absent really, really compelling circumstances. It's just not done.

Anonymous wrote:OP, if the house is owner-occupied, why don't you knock on the door and say you just want to make sure you're still on to move in in two weeks?

Yes, try this.

OP, if the house is owner-occupied, why don't you knock on the door and say you just want to make sure you're still on to move in in two weeks?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honorably people don't behave this way. Did you not know?

OP: Why are you spending so much time and effort in what is almost certainly a losing battle ?

The text messages may be so detailed and thorough as to constitute an enforceable writing--but you would be wise to spend your time seeking a different place to rent.