Contract With a Property Management Firm Usually

¶ … contract with a property management firm usually provides for various issues that are inherent in a real estate agreement. This will include the individual obliged to pay rent, who is the tenant, the commencement date, the address and the amount to be paid. This contract may be also be passed to real estate's firm for other purposes other than for residence including parking, storage, and business transactions.

A default usually occurs in instances when the tenant fails to follow the terms on the contract. Most common contracts are 6 months, 1 year or 2 years long. Some tenets violate the terms of the contract by moving out before the stipulated date while others move out without proper notice especially in contracts that continues on a month to month basis. In addition, the landlord might also violate the terms of the contract by getting the tenant out before the contract ends.

The other common violation of contract terms occurs when the tenant fails to meet the contracted move-out responsibilities. Contracts or lease agreements usually include clauses that spell out conditions under which the tenant will move out of the property. In the event that the tenant fails to adhere to these conditions requires them to pay a financial penalty to compensate the owner of the house when moving out. Many times the landlord will keep the security deposit in such instances. Moreover, when the tenant leaves the house in a worse state than they found it also results in a violation of the contract.

Contracts are legally binding and are enforceable. Therefore in case of one party violates the terms therein, the other party the other signing party is allowed to demand restitution or go to court.

Issue

It is critical to establish the ways in which violation of contract terms are most likely to occur and specifically in reference to the provided case.

The tenant falling to formally notify the landlord of continued stay is a deliberate violation of the contract terms. Here the tenant deliberately acknowledges that there was no attempt to consult the landlord in anyway what so ever on the renewal of lease contract. We have to establish the benefits associated with this option as the repercussions might be nonnegotiable and most likely to result in penalty.

The other hypothesis is that, the tenant made contact and actually verbally, by calling notified the landlord through the manager on the renewal, but the landlord, here represented by the real estate management forgot to factor it in. In this case, the truth is not established and there is lack of evidence of the communication and that it is the tenant's word against the landlords. Here also the tenant would be subjected to the penalties as stipulated by the contract terms.

Analysis

A close examination of this case reveals that the second option is most appropriate. The tenant makes mention of the fact that contract with the property management office was clear that there should have been a filling of a contract renewal form 60 days before the end of current contract as information on the intention to continue living in the premises. The tenant acknowledges that there is an attached penalty that accompanies violation of this clause, which is 400 dollars.

The tenant was out of town and made a telephone call to the management office informing them that he would not be there on time to fill out the form and if it was possible for him to fill it out when he got back, which would be after the stipulated 60 days. He claims that the answer he got was positive and that this was possible. When he later went to the office, the manager had no recollection of his phone call neither was there a record of this information nor witness. He was given the penalty and paid 400 dollars as required.

This would be a difficult case to handle for the tenant as it was basically his word against the managers and more so in reference to what the agreement stipulates. Looking at Varney v. Ditmars, 111 N.E. 822 (N.Y. 1916). It is actually difficult to enforce agreements that lack definiteness and specificity in regard to material terms there in. Furthermore, the agreement that the tenant alleges to have happened verbally is not a binding one as seen in the case between (Learning Annex Holdings, LLC v. Whitney Educ. Group, Inc., _ F. Supp. 2d _, No. 09 Civ. 4432 (SAS), 2011. These kind of agreemenets are enforcable because they point at the parties commitment in pursuing further their agreement unlike in the case of the teneant in the case study who allegedly made the call while he was a ware of the legal requirements and procedures as stipulatd by the contract terms.

It would have been pssible for the tenant to claim correspondence as required by the contract terms if he had done an email to the manager instead of the phone call. Despite the claim by Louis B. Meyer in an article by Professional Liability Agents Network (2011), that verbal agreements are binding no matter how brief they are, the overriding asumption is that a contract such as a tenant lease, is guided by clauses that restrict further agreements. The contract stipulates that an agreement shall be made by filling a renewal form and not calling in. Therefore this can not be a valid reason for the tenant to take to court. However, it is possible that this could have worked as a notice to the management pointing at his engagement elsewhere and the reason for his unplanned lateness. This however is a communication to the manager and subject to the offices approval not an aspect of the contract requirement.

Conclusion