Does landlord have to stick to verbal agreement?

[MountainDew]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR

I lease a commercial building. I just signed another lease last week. BEFORE I signed the lease, I asked the LL permission to do something else that was not written in the lease, and her immediate response was "Yeah, sure, I think that would be a great idea". Didn't seem important enough for me to make her write it down at the time.

A couple days later I get an email, "no, never mind, I don't want you to do that." I'm guessing she talked it over with her husband, who is not part of the lease and has no financial interest in the building, and HE decided he didn't like it.

Regardless, the agreement was made verbally. She said yes, we shook hands, and I have two witnesses. She admitted by email that we had the conversation. Is she allowed to change her mind and take back what she already said I could do? The lease that I signed neither allows nor forbids the activity.

 

[Andy0192]

Google the term " meeting of the minds".

What you think you meant may not be what she thought you meant.

If you don't have it in writing, you're going to have a difficult time proving you had an agreement.

 

[MountainDew]

If you don't have it in writing, you're going to have a difficult time proving you had an agreement.

Well, I don't have the original agreement in writing, but, I do have an email from the LL reminding me of what we talked about before and saying no. So she already admitted in writing that we did have a verbal agreement for at least a few days.

 

[AlmostALawyer]

I'm guessing the lease may have a merger clause or something to the affect of the writing constitutes the entire agreement. This would mean that the lease is fully integrated and no outside evidence can be used to contradict the terms prior to the writing of the lease. In some jurisdictions, you can get around this evidence rule, but I'm not familiar enough with Oregon to know if the exceptions apply.

 

[Andy0192]

Yup - nobody knows the conversations that might have taken place between the time your friends overhead a conversation & the time that the lease was signed.

 

[tranquility]

I hate to disagree with learned peers, but, contracts which of or concern land need to be in writing under the statue of frauds.

While there are instances which can take the agreement out, I don't see one here.

You have no deal for the items you wish to incorporate.

 

[MountainDew]

I'm guessing the lease may have a merger clause or something to the affect of the writing constitutes the entire agreement.

No, it does not. Things are added and subtracted all the time.

Yup - nobody knows the conversations that might have taken place between the time your friends overhead a conversation & the time that the lease was signed.

It has nothing to do with "friends" "overhearing" something. I brought two witnesses to stand there and stare at me and the landlord and watch and remember everything that went on, for the purposes of being witnesses in the future. Additionally, the landlord already admits we had this conversation and that she initially agreed. This is in writing.

Oregon landlord/tenant law:
Oregon Landlord Tenant Law

13. What is a rental agreement?
It is a verbal or written agreement between the landlord and tenant that gives the terms and conditions concerning the tenant's use of the rental unit. This includes the amount of rent, the date rent is due, where to pay rent and any other rules that apply to using the rental unit.

ORS 90.240

It is a good idea to get a written rental agreement. It helps if you have a problem later. Any changes made to the original rental agreement should also be in writing. If you have a written agreement, the landlord must give you a copy when you sign it and make a copy available later at a cost of not more than $.25 per page.

ORS 90.305


14. Should I get the rental agreement and receipts in writing?
Yes.Always get a written copy of any agreements you make with the landlord. Both you and the landlord should sign the rental agreement and any agreements about repairs and making late rent payments. Get a receipt when giving the landlord any money. If the landlord won't give you a receipt, get a money order from a bank or use a check.

Keep all copies!


15. How can I make the landlord live up to a spoken rental agreement?
A judge can order that both the landlord and tenant follow the agreement that was made. It is harder to prove what was agreed to if you do not have the agreement in writing. It may end up being the landlord's word against your word. A person who was with you when you and the landlord talked about the agreement can be a witness. Rent receipts and other written statements by the landlord can help prove the terms of the agreement.

I know landlord/tenant laws do not apply the same to commercial property but I am willing to bet the definition of a verbal agreement does. I would not move into a place with no written lease, but it appears that some people do, and it's recognized legally.

I agree everything SHOULD be in writing, but I don't see how that can automatically release the landlord from anything she said. In the future I'm going to bring a camcorder every time I meet with her...

 

[tranquility]

Or memorialize what is agreed to, send a copy to the landlord and have them return it signed. As your videotape would not be admissible in court with the objection of relevance. It's not a matter of "should" be in writing, but must.

 

[AlmostALawyer]

Let me know how this turns out. Post it on my profile or something.

Generally, under the parole evidence rule, if the contract is not complete or does contain a clause stating it is the entire agreement, other evidence can come in supplementing the agreement. Good Luck!

 

[Andy0192]

Well, I don't have the original agreement in writing, but, I do have an email from the LL reminding me of what we talked about before and saying no. So she already admitted in writing that we did have a verbal agreement for at least a few days.

By all means, take her to court & let us know how this line of reasoning works out for you.

 

[tranquility]

Generally, under the parole evidence rule, if the contract is not complete or does contain a clause stating it is the entire agreement, other evidence can come in supplementing the agreement.

I think you need to review the rule before the Bar.

 

[atomizer]

Well, I don't have the original agreement in writing, but, I do have an email from the LL reminding me of what we talked about before and saying no. So she already admitted in writing that we did have a verbal agreement for at least a few days.

It sounds to me like you have an agreement to a discussion pertaining to a request. Though that may be the case, that is what she understood at the time.
As mentioned before, you must have a meeting of the minds to have a valid contract. As for witnesses, I bet all of you have different recollections of the conversation, and as witnesses, your LL can challenge their relationship or even whether or not they where present at the time.

"Yeah, sure, I think that would be a great idea".

That is not an agreement. That is a consideration pending further thought.The key word being idea

 

[AlmostALawyer]

I think you need to review the rule before the Bar.

Tranquility, with all due respect, what am I missing with the parole evidence rule? My understanding is, if its the final agreement or contains a merger clause, no supplemental evidence. If it is partial, then you can supplement, as long as it doesn't contradict. Is this incorrect?

 

[tranquility]

My understanding is, if its the final agreement or contains a merger clause, no supplemental evidence. If it is partial, then you can supplement, as long as it doesn't contradict.

Now, compare and contrast with:

Generally, under the parole evidence rule, if the contract is not complete or does contain a clause stating it is the entire agreement, other evidence can come in supplementing the agreement.

See the problems?

The rule is what one cannot present as evidence, not what one can. That's why any version of "supplement" would be a poor choice of words. I understand what you mean, but the rule tells us what evidence cannot be used. In what seems to be a complete writing, we cannot use prior or contemporaneous verbal evidence to add to or change the writing. We can use it to clear up ambiguities and unclear portions of the contract. There are other exceptions as well.

From your username and signature, I assume you're a law student. I hold you to a more precise standard. While I understand this is casual writing, if you are going to be an attorney some day, you should be more precise even when casual. You don't need to put in all the buts and wherefore's, but you shouldn't reverse the focus of the rule. Even casually.

 

[AlmostALawyer]

I see your point. You're right, it was misleading. I am a law student and this is something I do for practice. It makes me think through fact patterns. I also do in between other things. I need to spend more time articulating. Appreciate the pointer.