AST who signs first

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    I actually edited it within 2 minutes of writing the original post, but went off to do other things, so didn't save it until sometime later.

    So, you are in agreement that whether they sign 1st, or not at all is irrelevant; The contract is valid and enforceable.
    Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by thesaint View Post
      I actually edited it within 2 minutes of writing the original post, but went off to do other things, so didn't save it until sometime later.

      So, you are in agreement that whether they sign 1st, or not at all is irrelevant; The contract is valid and enforceable.
      Would "acceptance" be the moving in to the flat? For the purposes of forming a valid "contract"

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by dant View Post
        Would "acceptance" be the moving in to the flat? For the purposes of forming a valid "contract"
        Assuming the TT didn't sign...

        Comment


          #19
          Don't need a written contract for less than 3 years.. so yes, paid money, agreed dates (well.. offer, accepted..) moved in => tenancy contract.

          But get it all written & signed 1st!!! And this "sending the contract" .. call me old-fashioned but I want to see the tenant sign the damn thing in front of me & then we both walk away with a copy, all signed...
          I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
            Do I take it LC that if a landlord were to send an unsigned tenancy agreement to a prospective tenant then that in itself indicates that the landlord agrees to offer/be bound to the agreement as it is sent?

            If there were any amendments made to it whilst it was in the tenants hands, at what point do those amendments become binding on the landlord or tenant?

            Following the logic - if the tenant sends an amended (but unsigned) agreement back to the landlord, does that indicate the tenant has accepted all the terms in the agreement that have not been altered? Or would that be conditional upon the landlord accepting the amendments? Would we have an 'accepted' tenancy agreement signed by no-one?

            If the tenant sends an amended & signed agreement back to the landlord - what if the landlord disagrees with the amendments?
            The above reads rather like a contract law exam question!

            Assuming that up to the point that the tenant receives the agreement no contract has been concluded and nothing has been said about the significance of the agreement being sent, merely sending an agreement for signature does not imply an offer by the landlord. If the tenant returns the contract amended and signs it then the landlord is free to accept or reject it.

            In the event that the sending of the contract is deemed to be an offer it is not accepted if the tenant amends the contract, signs it and sends it back. It will though (absent any indication to the contrary) be a counter-offer which the landlord is free to accept or reject.

            The best policy (as always) is to keep things simple. Proper procedures need to be put in place so that there is no doubt as to whether and when a contract is concluded.

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X