By - lust3
Page 3, you need a signature on the lease before it’s legally binding
Until you sign the lease, its not final. LL can promise you the world and whatever price but the final price on lease is what matters.
Well depending on how much he is raising the rent, this law may apply. So if your new rent was going to be 4% more than your current rent, but now it's 6% after he talks to his partners, then you can inform him that he's required to give you the appropriate notice.
How long was the renewal for?
Are you thinking of GOL 5-701 a. 10?
Busted. Was looking for motivation to do the research to see if that could apply. Decided to day drink instead.
I bow to your superior use of time.
So many oddball statues in the GOL. It’s like a treasure trove of unexpected exceptions.
Contrary to what some are saying, a legal contract can exist without a signature on a lease. We had this issue in May and consulted with a lawyer about it. The issue is going to come down to the exact wording of your communications. Even if you do have a legal contract, if your landlord wants to fight you in court it will likely cost you more than you’re going to save—and it will be a huge headache.
You declined the 3.500$ offer. You countered and your counter was declined. When he’s saying 3500$ is the lowest he can go that’s not a real offer so nothing on the table.
No he comes back at 4000$ or whatever and you better take that now if you want to stay, but that’s just my advice
Idk why you were downvoted. Maybe because you wrote 3500$ instead of $3500?
I bet so lol
IANAL but sounds like you have yourself a binding contract.
>Over the past several years, courts from Massachusetts to New York
to North Carolina have held that a series of emails and letters between
two parties can when taken as a whole create a binding written contract.
Most people realize that the law generally requires a written, signed
agreement for a transaction to be legally binding. What most people do
not realize, however, is that an email exchange can also satisfy the
legal requirements and collectively constitute a binding contract.
Eh, I think that would really only work if they both *agreed* to terms and planned to memorialize terms with a signed contract.
OP rejected the initial offer and the the LL said they will have to get back to them.
It sounds like the OP and LL have not agreed to terms, thus their email exchanges would still not constitute anything binding.
I am also not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation.
Paging our in house counsel, u/LouisSeize
Thanks for the shout out. I'm not goind to wade into this mess since I suspect there is more to the story than OP is writing especially since we cannot read the exact details. The question,
>Is it legal for my landlord to offer a rent number, then rescind that offer after I try to negotiate?
seems to have an obvious answer but then again, that me not be the right quetsion to ask.
Sorry I cannot be more helpful.
It is true that we didn’t agree to terms, but I also didn’t reject the initial offer. I simply proposed an alternative, which was rejected. When it was, I agreed to the initial offer, which the landlord is trying to weasel out of.
By not accepting the initial offer and countering, I would define that as rejecting IMO
This! Once you counter be ready for them to walk away from the initial offer / number. Same for salary as rent. You shouldn’t expect them to offer the original if you reject the number and counter the offer.
Countering is rejecting.
> It is true that we didn’t agree to terms, but I also didn’t reject the initial offer. I simply proposed an alternative...
LOL. You should go into Politics.
This was a helpful link, thank you!
IANAL but I don't think you have yourself a binding contract unless y'all exchanged consideration of some kind. For example, let's say you and I email and I promise to purchase X number of widgets at Y price, and pay you half up front with a check, which you deposit.
We never write up and sign a contract, but consideration (half of the invoice) was paid. We have a de facto contract in place.
Getting back to your example I think it depends on the specific language used, but yeah -- I don't think you have a contract.
edit: definitely agree, and forgot to add: talk to legal aid/met council/a lawyer!
That's not how consideration works.
OP, I do corporate law, not tenant law, so I can't tell you much other than: you should talk to someone who does tenant law in NYC. My instinct is 1. You might have a case 2. It'll be a huge pain to actually bring it and it will be difficult to find a lawyer, meanwhile your landlord will be a jerk 3. You might be best served just pointing to the emails and saying "this is what we agreed to" and seeing if that doesn't work - not insane to think it might.
Cool. ELI5/TLDR me where I went wrong? That's what I was taught when I took some basic business contracts classes in undergrad.
I honestly would tell you to do anything other than spend time trying to understand the concept but if you insist:
The basic principle is that both parties need to be getting something. You cannot have a contract that says "X will give $ to Y" and nothing else. You need "X will give $ to Y to in exchange for [goods, services, rights, etc]." Whether $ has changed hands yet isn't important, it's totally possible to have a contract that says x commits to pay y $ in one month for [thing] which shall be delivered in one week. (See also:callable capital commitments to partnerships, pay on demand loans) It's common to put some nominal amount of cash in there up front but in most places it's not required.
Important to note that refraining from an act also constitutes consideration. See Hamer v Sidway.
This is actually pretty rarely correct ( actually idk that it's the law anywhere anymore). Hamer was before the 2d restatement of contracts was published. The restatement follows the "bargin" theory of consideration where refraining is not sufficient.
Tl;dr: your contracts prof had you read Hamer because 1. It's kinda funny; 2. It makes people confused, thus making the exam easier to curve.
Okay, thanks. Basically, you're saying because of the nature of a leasing/rental agreement which is measured and paid for over regular rental payments, consideration in the traditional sense is common but not required? (ie, the consideration is the promise of regular rental payments at the agreed-upon amount).
>consideration in the traditional sense is common but not required?
This is consideration in the traditional sense - each party is providing something
mmmkay. I'll see about thinking on it some more later. Clearly not getting it 100% at the moment.
we don't have to exchange anything of value at the time the contract is executed for the contract to be binding. the consideration is just the aspect of the contract that each party provides to the counterparty. in your widget example, the consideration is the payment (or the widgets in exchange).
that being said, you have to perform (or be willing to perform) under the contract in order to bring a breach claim. if i fail to make payments on my widgets, i can't sue for breach because you failed to provide them.
The landlord is agreeing to provide an apartment. The tenant is agreeing to pay rent.
My advice is limited to "speak with a lawyer who does housing law in nyc".
The emails you posted aren't ideal unfortunately so I'm not sure how far you will get but housing law is very different in different states and you should speak with someone who knows them (not me) before you start making noise about a case.
Landlord: Please let me know if you plan to renew. The new rent will be $3,500.
Me: I appreciate you reaching out. As we're considering this offer, the substantial rent increase is our primary reason for pause. We love the apartment and neighborhood, and it is our preference to stay where we are. However, meeting halfway at $3,200 would be a better fit for our budget at this point. I hope our continued timeliness with rent, and the care we take of the unit provide peace of mind as you consider this option. We would sign a renewal today at that price.
Landlord: I appreciate your email, however, I can’t do anything close to that number. I gave you my bottom line number. My partners wanted over 4k btw. I take it that you will not be renewing.
Me: We can figure it out and will renew at $3550. Can you please send over a contract?
Landlord: I will get back to you on Tuesday about a renewal. I need to speak with my partners to see if they still want to do that number.
The contract law question here would be whether “I gave you my bottom line number” amounts to an offer. Your counter offer voids the original offer. He rejected your counter offer. Unless that language constitutes an offer to rent you the apartment at a specified rate you don’t have anything you can accept.
I don’t know that I see enough there, but I’m not exactly current on case law in this realm. That this is a landlord tenant issue also likely pulls in a variety of other elements beyond basic contract theory. I’d speak to a lawyer that practices in the area.
>For example, let's say you and I email and I promise to purchase X number of widgets at Y price, and pay you half up front with a check, which you deposit.
>We never write up and sign a contract, but consideration (half of the invoice) was paid. We have a de facto contract in place.
This would be a contract for the sale of goods ("widgets") and is void since it is not in writing under UCC Section 2-201.
[Edited to fix typos.]
Lookup Peppercorn theory
Yeah, I'm familiar with that at least. It's a nominal exchange to satisfy the consideration requirement, yeah? IE, I give you a buck for your bike.
Sorry, not getting at what you're trying to communicate, mate.
I’m saying you should read up on it. You don’t need to give someone a dollar, or anything at all, to constitute consideration. Read Hamer v Sidway.
Will take it into "consideration" to brush up on it, thanks.
Yeah, I understand that the exchange of value* isn't always necessary in a contract, and I'm aware that different parts of the law can have different commonly accepted practices and such.
It was just drilled into me in business contracts class to look for consideration when it comes to validity, etc.
edit*: physical/digital exchange of cash/like at time of agreement
You do need consideration, that’s a required element of a contract. My point is that consideration doesn’t need to be handing over cash, goods or anything tangible.
thanks! yeah, i meant to write out at time of agreement and edited. appreciate you explaining a bit.
Resolution: landlord didn’t raise rent above $3,500. If they had, the laws about rent increase notice timing would’ve delayed the time for the new rent to come into affect (because this is over a 5% increase).
I think especially since you have a renewal and it was a offer which can be accepted at any time without the offer being taken back, the landlord has to honor it since this meets the requirements of a contract (business law classes): consideration, mutual assent etc etc