Verbal Contract
Discussion
Long story short:
7 people jointly decide to rent office space 2 years ago. Contract was for 3 years. Contract signed by one party. 3 of the 7 tenants have decided they like working from home and want out. Financial implications now fall on the remaining people, namely covering the difference in rent.
Can the 3 be held to account on the basis of a verbal contract at the start of the term? Everything was discussed, everybody knew the terms before agreeing to take it on.
7 people jointly decide to rent office space 2 years ago. Contract was for 3 years. Contract signed by one party. 3 of the 7 tenants have decided they like working from home and want out. Financial implications now fall on the remaining people, namely covering the difference in rent.
Can the 3 be held to account on the basis of a verbal contract at the start of the term? Everything was discussed, everybody knew the terms before agreeing to take it on.
1. An agreement that creates or transfers an interest in land must be written, but the agreement you describe might not be an agreement for an interest in land. More facts needed. Sub-tenancies? Licenses to occupy?
2. The correct term, BTW, is oral contract. A written contract is a verbal contract. So is an oral contract. Verbum: Latin for word.
2. The correct term, BTW, is oral contract. A written contract is a verbal contract. So is an oral contract. Verbum: Latin for word.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 7th October 20:41
Oral testimony of what happened is evidence - all depends on whether the evidence is credible to a Judge. It's not a question of four out voting three at Court, it's a question of which version of events the Judge finds more probable. Sometimes, one witness trumps many.
Conduct can be evidence of an agreement.
The possible difficulty is this: Party One was the tenant. Were Parties Two to Seven sub-tenants? Were they just licensees? On what basis did they occupy the property?
If sub-tenants, the agreements would have to be written. A licence to occupy can be oral, or inferred from conduct.
Party One was careless for not making sure that the positions of Parties Two to Seven were made clear in writing at the outset.
OP, which party are you? Party One? One of the four? One of the three?
Conduct can be evidence of an agreement.
The possible difficulty is this: Party One was the tenant. Were Parties Two to Seven sub-tenants? Were they just licensees? On what basis did they occupy the property?
If sub-tenants, the agreements would have to be written. A licence to occupy can be oral, or inferred from conduct.
Party One was careless for not making sure that the positions of Parties Two to Seven were made clear in writing at the outset.
OP, which party are you? Party One? One of the four? One of the three?
Breadvan72 said:
1. An agreement that creates or transfers an interest in land must be written, but the agreement you describe might not be an agreement for an interest in land. More facts needed. Sub tenancies? Licenses to occupy? Just a cist split?
2. The correct term is oral contract. A written contract is a verbal contract. So is an oral contract. Verbum: Latin for word.
1. I don't know what a cist split is but as it's none of the others you cited it may well be that.2. The correct term is oral contract. A written contract is a verbal contract. So is an oral contract. Verbum: Latin for word.
2. Thank you.
Boosted LS1 said:
Could it be the word of 4 versus 3?
We had the same thought.We're hoping & suspect there is a large amount of naivety on their behalf. None of us want to be confrontational but we'd benefit from sounding like we know what we're talking about when we explain the obligations involved.
I'm one of the remaining parties. We were all collaborating on projects so when one group took on the office, the others were invited to join in as equals due to the shared workload. In fact the people that left benefitted from the arrangement more than the people who initially found the office.
The reason given was 'We find it convenient working from home'. If their business had gone under it would be more compassionate. You don't order a meal, eat half them offer to only pay for what you've eaten because that's 'convenient' to you.
It won't bankrupt us if we have to pay the difference but the manner and lack of discussion beforehand feel a little disrespectful, especially as everybody has know each other a number of years.
Edited by DrSteveBrule on Wednesday 7th October 20:50
Breadvan72 said:
Cist was a blatantly obvious typo for cost, but snark away! You can ask someone else for free advice. Cheery bye.
That wasn't snarkiness, I genuinely thought that was latin / legalese; pro bono, de facto etc. You even gave a latin example in your reply. It wasn't obvious to me. Here's me seconds after your post looking it up:
I respect your posts and always enjoy reading your advice on legal matters and wouldn't dream of being sarky towards you of all people.
Blimey. Sorry.
That's regrettable but a bit silly. Words are just words, and text is just text - it should be looked at in context.
OP, ask yourself this: on what basis did Two to Seven occupy the offices, if not by, at the least, licence agreed with One? If no licence, then One could have excluded any of Two to Seven.
OP, ask yourself this: on what basis did Two to Seven occupy the offices, if not by, at the least, licence agreed with One? If no licence, then One could have excluded any of Two to Seven.
Breadvan72 said:
That's regrettable but a bit silly. Words are just words, and text is just text - it should be looked at in context.
OP, ask yourself this: on what basis did Two to Seven occupy the offices, if not by, at the least, licence agreed with One? If no licence, then One could have excluded any of Two to Seven.
Thank you for coming back, it's appreciated.OP, ask yourself this: on what basis did Two to Seven occupy the offices, if not by, at the least, licence agreed with One? If no licence, then One could have excluded any of Two to Seven.
Two to Seven agreed to the Licence held by One. All parties were of shared understanding and initial agreement; Parties Two, Three and Four are equally obligated (or not) as the people who have left, yet they understand that they have another year to go and are as equally disappointed in the actions of the other 3.
We're hoping a compromise can be reached and if it turns out we were in a position to take legal recourse - through a small claims court for example - we wouldn't relish it and would certainly be hesitant in going down that route purely because we're not vindictive people. We have the benefit of age and experience of the realities of the business world whereas the 3 deserters are relatively young and naive. This may be an important lesson to them; stand by your obligations.
kwits. Breadvan72 said:
Cist was a blatantly obvious typo for cost, but snark away! You can ask someone else for free advice. Cheery bye.
Maybe if you're such an expert in Language, you could invest in a spell checker prior to posting rather than berate others. From the majority of your other posts, this has confirmed what I have believed all along, you are indeed a helmet.Edited by shavermcspud on Thursday 8th October 21:13
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff