Landlord/Tenant: Is email legally binding?
james l
prospective tenant saying that they are approved for an apartment and
should schedule a time to come and sign the lease. The tenant
responds with a time and doesn't hear anything back. Later in the
day, the landlord leaves a voice mail saying there was a
miscommunication and the prospective tenant is NOT approved and has to
fill out more information.
Is the email claiming that the prospective tenant is approved legally
binding? Did the landlord leave a voice mail to dodge having the
error in writing? Is email considered writing in terms of the law?
Jurisdiction is Philadelphia, PA.
Thanks for any advice.
Daniel R.Reitman
See a Pennsylvania lawyer to confirm this, but in most states, the
"mailbox" rule applies: once the acceptance is in the mail, it's
valid, unless an overtaking rejection is actually received first.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
mm
<james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did the landlord leave a voice mail to dodge having the
>error in writing?
I'm neither a lawyer nor a mind reader, but just last week my friend
told me to email him or call him to say when I wanted to come over. I
called or wrote and said I was going to be there between 11 AM and 12
the next day. He lives an hour away.
I got up late, had errands to do on the way, and would have left as
soon as I got dressed, but I know the guy and know he loves email, so
I turned on the computer and checked my email, and something had come
up and he had to postpone. I think a normal person would have called
me to make sure I got the message before I drove an hour each way. I
think unless one sits at his computer all the time, one is a lot more
likely to get a phone call or phone message quickly than an email.
In his shoes, I would have called.
Barry Gold
This is for discussion purposes only, and is not legal advice. I'm
not a lawyer. If you want legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Answering your questions bottom-up:
Email is a writing in most jurisdictions.
The chances are that the landlord left voice mail because he wanted to
reach the prospective tenant quickly -- some people check their email
every few minutes, some people check once a month whether it needs it
or not. :-)
An email saying, "You are approved" is _probably_ not legally binding.
The problem is twofold:
1. Did filing the application constitute an "offer"? If so, the
email would be an "acceptance" and would be binding when sent. But
the chances are that the application was only a request for a lease.
Ask yourself: suppose the prospective tenant had changed his mind
and decided not to move in. Would he have to pay rent anyway? If
not, there is no contract: a contract binds _both_ sides.
2. "Agreement to agree": even if the application had been an offer
and the email an acceptance, the prospective tenant was supposed to
come in and sign the lease. That makes it pretty clear (in my mind)
that the lease was the actual contract, and everything leading up to
it was preliminaries.
To have a contract, the law requires that the parties agree on all
the terms. That doesn't mean you have to lay them all out in
writing -- if you leave some out, the courts will usually fill them
in with the "usual" or "customary" terms for that kind of contract
in that industry, or simply "reasonable" terms.
Example: say I agree to buy your widget for $100. We don't specify
when you will deliver it, nor when I will pay you. If we end up in
court, the judge will probably infer that you will make delivery
"reasonably promptly", and I will pay within a "reasonable time".
If the contract specifies interest for late payment but doesn't
specify the amount, the court will insert a statutory interest rate.
Etc.
But if the circumstances indicate that we were to meet and set the
actual terms face to face, then all we have is an "agreement to
agree in the future". As a general rule, an "agreement to agree" is
not a binding agreement, because the parties have not yet agreed.
Example: Company A makes an "agreement in principle" to acquire
Company B. The timing, price, etc. are still to be negotiated.
Something happens and the negotiations fall apart. Will a court
enforce the "agreement"? Probably not, because too much was left to
future negotiations.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Alarums & Excursions, Xenofilkia: http://places.to/xeno
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
David Martel
> Basically, the story goes that the landlord sends an email to the
> prospective tenant saying that they are approved for an apartment and
> should schedule a time to come and sign the lease. The tenant
> responds with a time and doesn't hear anything back. Later in the
> day, the landlord leaves a voice mail saying there was a
> miscommunication and the prospective tenant is NOT approved and has to
> fill out more information.
The e-mail was an offer to get together and sign a lease. It's not clear
if the acceptance of this offer was received by the landlord. The landlord
withdraws the offer in a timely fashion due to an error in the offer. No
lease was signed.
The manner in which these things happened (e-mail, voicemail, written
with a quill pen, chiseled in stone, et c.) is an irrelevant sideshow. The
offer was withdrawn and no lease was signed. The prospective tenant may be
entitled to damages if he relied on the offer to his detriment.
Good luck,
Dave M.
AFX
Im not a lawyer by any means but mistakes happen and this doesn't seem
like one that would be specifically covered under any sort of law.
Many times here in Texas for home loans an initial approval is given
but when it goes to underwriting it gets denied. I guess if you feel
he gave an approval to some how get more money then maybe you have an
issue but I don't see how even a verbal approval would be legally
bound.
But again, im not a lawyer and less things have surprised me :)
Best of luck!
Cy Pres
<drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
["You're approved" email followed by an "I accept" followed by "Oh
wait you're not approved."]
>See a Pennsylvania lawyer to confirm this, but in most states, the
>"mailbox" rule applies: once the acceptance is in the mail, it's
>valid, unless an overtaking rejection is actually received first.
This is all well and good when the acceptance is to an actual offer. I
don't believe a simple "you're approved" message constitutes an actual
offer, because it does not contain all the terms of a contract. It is,
at most, an "agreement to agree" and unenforceable in contract
(although it's possible that under some circumstances some alternate
theory would enable recovery).
If the parties had already exchanged the lease contract and everyone
involved knew what was in it, and the landlord emailed the lease
itself, signed, as a PDF, and the tenant sent back a signed copy, this
would probably be enough.
Cy Pres
<james...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Re-sent because I believe a system clock error caused this post to
get lost.]
>Thanks for any advice.
IANAL this is not legal advice, notwithstanding that you asked for
advice.
My guess would be probably not. I'm not sure it would even allow a
promissory estoppel claim, i.e. one reasonably relied on the
representation in the email that one was approved for an apartment and
immediately called every other apartment and dropped them, or canceled
one's lease in a current apartment, and was thereby harmed. I don't
think a reasonable person would do that.
Other than a situation like that, even if there was a contract, I'm
having trouble seeing any damages here.
I don't think a contract would be formed until you actually had ink on
paper here. I think this would come under the statute of frauds, i.e.
all contracts for transfer of an interest in land must be in writing.
If the lease was for over a year, similarly the statute of frauds
would kick in.
Your state may, however, have special laws relating to landlords and
tenants, or contracts, which actually *does* create a contract in a
situation like this. I'd consult a local lawyer if this is a real
issue.
Daniel R.Reitman
In the original post, then, we probably have a question of fact. I
was operating under the assumption that the essential terms (property,
rent, and duration) were discussed in advance, so, unless the statute
of frauds applied, there was an oral agreement (which might even be
considered written in light of the original e-mail constituting a
signed writing).
Don
> Basically, the story goes that the landlord sends an email to the
> prospective tenant saying that they are approved for an apartment and
> should schedule a time to come and sign the lease. The tenant
> responds with a time and doesn't hear anything back. Later in the
> day, the landlord leaves a voice mail saying there was a
> miscommunication and the prospective tenant is NOT approved and has to
> fill out more information.
A similar scenario is someone filling out an online application for a
mortgage loan and hearing back via email that "You are aproved." But
then later all kinds of further supporting documents are required, and
the final decision may turn out to be negative. Also, people get
letters via regular mail saying "You are approved" (for a loan, credit
card, insurance policy, etc.), but after submitting the forms are
turned down. I would guess there are many thousands of cases every day
where various financial products are promised but not delivered.
BetaB4
news:196dba02-7ccf-426f...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Basically, the story goes that the landlord sends an email to the
> prospective tenant saying that they are approved for an apartment and
> should schedule a time to come and sign the lease.
> Is the email claiming that the prospective tenant is approved legally
>
> Jurisdiction is Philadelphia, PA.
In Pennsylvania, in order for a contract for sale or lease of real property
to be legally binding, it must be in writing. The written email was just a
communication regarding scheduling a time to sign a written lease. If the
written lease was never signed -- for whatever reason -- no written lease
was created.
Had the person actually moved in, and the landlord accepted rent from that
person, a landlord/tenant relationship would have been created -- even if a
written lease had not been signed. But, that didn't happen. There was no
written lease, no move-in, no receipt and acceptance of any rent, and
therefore no tenancy or right to tenancy was created.
Mostly the same would be true had the person received an email inviting them
to come and sign a contract for sale for real estate -- until such a written
contract was signed, the buyer would have no ability to enforce the
contract. An oral understanding that they were going to enter into a
written agreement is not binding when it comes to real property contracts in
Pennsylvania.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> In the original post, then, we probably have a question of fact.
> I was operating under the assumption that the essential terms
> (property, rent, and duration) were discussed in advance, so,
> unless the statute of frauds applied, there was an oral agreement
> (which might even be considered written in light of the original
> e-mail constituting a signed writing).
Remember that many situations that look like offers are, in the law,
considered as only invitations to make an offer. I believe that's how
a case like this would be treated. They don't sign a lease subject to
approval. The prospective tenant applies. If he is approved he is
invited to sign a lease. But the approval itself doesn't create the
lease in most cases.
Stu
nos...@isp.com
Referring to parties in Pa., the OP did not say that the landlord and
prospective tenant in question had agreed orally to any of the
terms/conditions of a lease and also did not say that the would-be
tenant in question had read the lease which the OP implied would have
been drafted by the landlord if the landlord offered one.
In addition, and quite apart from whether in Pa some emails that are
"signed" in some manner are deemed "writings" for some purposes
(another question the OP posed but in this connection, too, only
vaguely/generally), the OP did not even say that the prospective
landlord had signed the email to which the OP referred (i.e., that it
included or had attached some sort of wording or other data that made
explicit that the email's sender intended that it be deemed "signed").
Thus (and as others have noted previously), the OP's itself merely
open-ended question whether the referred to "email [is] legally
binding" has no referent whatever, since, besides not saying that
there was a factual basis to contend that it contained a signature (in
this context, s/k/a, an "electronic signature"), the OP did not
include facts that anyway would answer:
"legally binding" for what _particular_ _purpose_?
-- i.e., to compel the landlord to offer the would-be tenant a lease
(which the would-be tenant would then be free to reject)? that the
email itself which the OP did not say stated or even referred to any
terms/conditions of a lease nonetheless itself constituted a lease?
As Mr. Reitman belatedly (in effect) suggested, instead of vaguely
asking, as the OP did, whether email in Pa. is "considered writing in
terms of the law" in general, if the OP was trying to ask whether
email in Pa. (even if transmitted in a manner that shows that its
sender intended it to be read as having been "signed") will be
effective for the purposes of binding the sender to a lease of real
property as landlord or tenant, "No" would be the answer to _that_
question (re. which see the Pa. Electronic Transactions Act, 73 P.S.,
Ch. 41, at � 2260.104(b)(2)[iii]).
Mike
> "james l" <james...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:196dba02-7ccf-426f...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Basically, the story goes that the landlord sends an email to the
>> prospective tenant saying that they are approved for an apartment and
>> should schedule a time to come and sign the lease.
>> .............
>> Is the email claiming that the prospective tenant is approved legally
>> binding?.....
>>
>> Jurisdiction is Philadelphia, PA.
>
> In Pennsylvania, in order for a contract for sale or lease of real property
> to be legally binding, it must be in writing. The written email was just a
> communication regarding scheduling a time to sign a written lease. If the
> written lease was never signed -- for whatever reason -- no written lease
> was created.
But does the law say "it must be signed with ink, in cursive, etc"?
I.e. let's say the email said:
=========
Dear John,
You're approved for the lease. Please come by our office at 3:00.
The Office Manager
=========
Wouldn't "The Office Manager" be a 'signature'? Don't email programs
even call that little bit of text that you can add to all messages a
'signature'? Couldn't the person then have also signed this contract by
hitting reply and sending:
========
> Dear John,
> You're approved for the lease. Please come by our office at 3:00.
> The Office Manager
Dear Office Manager,
I accept the lease.
John
========
Now the office manager might then have some issues trying to say
"b-b-but that didn't have all these terms about how he has to pay the
rent between 11:00am and 11:01am on the 1st, in rupees. It also doesn't
have how he can't make any noises above 3db and must tiptoe in and out
of the parking lot and can only do that right at noontime, etc." but it
still seems like it would have created a meeting of the minds that was
in writing and signed.
Barry Gold
>>If the parties had already exchanged the lease contract and everyone
>>involved knew what was in it, and the landlord emailed the lease
>>itself, signed, as a PDF, and the tenant sent back a signed copy, this
>>would probably be enough.
Daniel R.Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>In the original post, then, we probably have a question of fact. I
>was operating under the assumption that the essential terms (property,
>rent, and duration) were discussed in advance, so, unless the statute
>of frauds applied, there was an oral agreement (which might even be
>considered written in light of the original e-mail constituting a
>signed writing).
IMHO you have to ask ourself, "are both sides bound". Assume that the
"basic terms" (property, rent, duration) have been discussed in
advance, and the landlord sends the "You are approved, come in and
sign the lease" email. What if the _tenant_ changes his mind and
decides to rent elsewhere? Is he going to be "on the hook" for a
year's rent (or however long the lease is for)?
What if the tenant shows up to sign the lease and finds a "no pets"
clause. He hadn't previously discussed this with the landlord, but he
has a Rotweiler. Is he still stuck with the apartment and this lease?
What if the tenant is fond of late night parties, and the lease says,
"No noise above 80db between 10 PM and 6 AM."
So ask yourself, is there really a meeting of minds here? Or only an
"agreement to agree" or an "agreement in principle?"
Daniel R.Reitman
wrote:
>>On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:03:40 -0400, Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>If the parties had already exchanged the lease contract and everyone
>>>involved knew what was in it, and the landlord emailed the lease
>>>itself, signed, as a PDF, and the tenant sent back a signed copy, this
>>>would probably be enough.
>
>Daniel R.Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>In the original post, then, we probably have a question of fact. I
>>was operating under the assumption that the essential terms (property,
>>rent, and duration) were discussed in advance, so, unless the statute
>>of frauds applied, there was an oral agreement (which might even be
>>considered written in light of the original e-mail constituting a
>>signed writing).
>
>IMHO you have to ask ourself, "are both sides bound". Assume that the
>"basic terms" (property, rent, duration) have been discussed in
>advance, and the landlord sends the "You are approved, come in and
>sign the lease" email. What if the _tenant_ changes his mind and
>decides to rent elsewhere? Is he going to be "on the hook" for a
>year's rent (or however long the lease is for)?
If the parties have agreed, they've agreed, but the tenant isn't bound
under a statute of frauds unless he or she sends the e-mail
acknowledging the agreement. Fortunately for the tenant, in the event
of breach, the landlord in most states is required to make reasonable
efforts to find a replacement tenant before holding the tenant to the
balance of the lease.
>What if the tenant shows up to sign the lease and finds a "no pets"
>clause. He hadn't previously discussed this with the landlord, but he
>has a Rotweiler. Is he still stuck with the apartment and this lease?
>
>What if the tenant is fond of late night parties, and the lease says,
>"No noise above 80db between 10 PM and 6 AM."
>
>So ask yourself, is there really a meeting of minds here? Or only an
>"agreement to agree" or an "agreement in principle?"
This is a different issue. A material change in terms would indicate
either no agreement, or an attempt to modify the agreement, and would
depend on whether the parties had reached sufficient agreement on
essential terms to render the "you're approved" notice suficient to
bind them to the agreed terms.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHP
INTENDED.
Seth
Don <dwz...@telus.net> wrote:
>A similar scenario is someone filling out an online application for a
>mortgage loan and hearing back via email that "You are aproved." But
>then later all kinds of further supporting documents are required, and
>the final decision may turn out to be negative.
The fine print is (in my experience) always included in the approval
notice: "Subject to providing satisfactory documentation, etc. you're
approved."
> Also, people get letters via regular mail saying "You are approved"
>(for a loan, credit card, insurance policy, etc.), but after
>submitting the forms are turned down.
It's definitely the case there, too. And the print saying so is the
smallest they can get away with.
> I would guess there are many thousands of cases every day
>where various financial products are promised but not delivered.
(If your number was preselected then) YOU HAVE WON $30 MILLION!
Seth
Seth
BetaB4 <Bet...@betab4ghjk.mnb> wrote:
>In Pennsylvania, in order for a contract for sale or lease of real property
>to be legally binding, it must be in writing. The written email was just a
>communication regarding scheduling a time to sign a written lease. If the
>written lease was never signed -- for whatever reason -- no written lease
>was created.
What if it were a snailmail letter, so there's something that's
clearly _writing_?
Seth
Daniel R.Reitman
I think the argument is that the e-mail didn't have suffcient content
to bind.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Barry Gold
>>"basic terms" (property, rent, duration) have been discussed in
>>advance, and the landlord sends the "You are approved, come in and
>>sign the lease" email. What if the _tenant_ changes his mind and
>>decides to rent elsewhere? Is he going to be "on the hook" for a
>>year's rent (or however long the lease is for)?
Daniel R.Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>If the parties have agreed, they've agreed, but the tenant isn't bound
>under a statute of frauds unless he or she sends the e-mail
>acknowledging the agreement.
Now wait a minute. Earlier you said that the E-mail saying, "You are
approved" was an acceptance. That implies that the tenant had made an
earlier "offer" to rent the property.
BUt if the tenant must still take one more step -- sending an email
acknowledging the agreement -- then there is no contract until he
sends that email or otherwise agrees _in writing_.
I think nobody here is disagreeing that an email is "a writing" and
that adding the sender's name or other identifier (even in a canned
".sig" file) makes it a "signed writing". But we need to be clear on
at what point a binding contract exists.
Mind you, an acceptance is effective _when sent_, so if the tenant
fires off an "OK, I'll take the apartment", then there is a contract
_provided_ there is sufficient agreement on the terms. If some
significant terms are still "up in the air", then there is only an
agreement to agree, which isn't a contract.
Don
> (If your number was preselected then) YOU HAVE WON $30 MILLION!
>
> Seth
I was going to reply to your message, but I am off to Nigeria to claim
my share of a big windfall.
Seth
Daniel R.Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:36:59 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>In article <h2ibg5$ct7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>BetaB4 <Bet...@betab4ghjk.mnb> wrote:
>>
>>>In Pennsylvania, in order for a contract for sale or lease of real property
>>>to be legally binding, it must be in writing. The written email was just a
>>>communication regarding scheduling a time to sign a written lease. If the
>>>written lease was never signed -- for whatever reason -- no written lease
>>>was created.
>>
>>What if it were a snailmail letter, so there's something that's
>>clearly _writing_?
>
>I think the argument is that the e-mail didn't have suffcient content
>to bind.
Suppose (extreme case) that the prospective tenant had received a copy
of the standard lease, along with the special terms (e.g. amount of
rent) prior to applying, and had paid an application fee. Would the
exchange of "You're Approved" and "Great! I'll take it, I'll come in
tomorrow at 3 to sign the lease" emails then be a contract, because
all the terms were already known to both parties?
Seth
Barry Gold
>>I think the argument is that the e-mail didn't have suffcient content
>>to bind.
Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>Suppose (extreme case) that the prospective tenant had received a copy
>of the standard lease, along with the special terms (e.g. amount of
>rent) prior to applying, and had paid an application fee. Would the
>exchange of "You're Approved" and "Great! I'll take it, I'll come in
>tomorrow at 3 to sign the lease" emails then be a contract, because
>all the terms were already known to both parties?
Then I would say that there is a contract already (offer and
acceptance, with all significant terms known to both parties), and
coming in to sign the lease is merely a formality.
Daniel R.Reitman
wrote:
>>On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:12:51 +0000 (GMT), bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold)
>>>IMHO you have to ask ourself, "are both sides bound". Assume that the
>>>"basic terms" (property, rent, duration) have been discussed in
>>>advance, and the landlord sends the "You are approved, come in and
>>>sign the lease" email. What if the _tenant_ changes his mind and
>>>decides to rent elsewhere? Is he going to be "on the hook" for a
>>>year's rent (or however long the lease is for)?
>
>Daniel R.Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>If the parties have agreed, they've agreed, but the tenant isn't bound
>>under a statute of frauds unless he or she sends the e-mail
>>acknowledging the agreement.
>
>Now wait a minute. Earlier you said that the E-mail saying, "You are
>approved" was an acceptance. That implies that the tenant had made an
>earlier "offer" to rent the property.
>
>BUt if the tenant must still take one more step -- sending an email
>acknowledging the agreement -- then there is no contract until he
>sends that email or otherwise agrees _in writing_.
>. . . .
Not quite. Statutes of frauds don't deny the existence of a contract.
They only render the contract unenforceable against a party who fails
to sign.
In the hypothetical, the landlord's message is a signed writing
binding the landlord. If a statute of frauds applies, until the
tenant sends a similar signed writing, he or she is not bound.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Daniel R.Reitman
>Suppose (extreme case) that the prospective tenant had received a copy
>of the standard lease, along with the special terms (e.g. amount of
>rent) prior to applying, and had paid an application fee. Would the
>exchange of "You're Approved" and "Great! I'll take it, I'll come in
>tomorrow at 3 to sign the lease" emails then be a contract, because
>all the terms were already known to both parties?
Very probably.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHP
INTENDED.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Suppose (extreme case) that the prospective tenant had received a
> copy of the standard lease, along with the special terms (e.g.
> amount of rent) prior to applying, and had paid an application
> fee. Would the exchange of "You're Approved" and "Great! I'll
> take it, I'll come in tomorrow at 3 to sign the lease" emails then
> be a contract, because all the terms were already known to both
> parties?
It could well. One proviso is that no contract is formed unless both
parties are bound. So in addition to the tenant's written statement,
the landlord's notice must indicate an intent to be bound by the
specific contract that was sent to the tenant for his review.
Stu
Stuart A. Bronstein
>>If the parties have agreed, they've agreed, but the tenant isn't
>>bound under a statute of frauds unless he or she sends the e-mail
>>acknowledging the agreement.
>
> Now wait a minute. Earlier you said that the E-mail saying, "You
> are approved" was an acceptance. That implies that the tenant had
> made an earlier "offer" to rent the property.
Since the parties contemplated signing a formal lease containing
additional terms, what occurred before would be no more than an
agreement to agree. Most courts hold these unenforceable unless
enforceable on equitable grounds.
Stu