Landlord refuses to give back deposit

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is the very issue in dispute. Was 12 months agreed from the outset. The o/p only made a declaration of intent. I am planning to stay 12 months. He did not say I undertake to stay 12 months. The essence of a legally binding agreement is offer and acceptance. There must be an unconditional offer and an unqualified acceptance. What we are told here is that there was a statement of intent which is a conditional offer. The landlord did not signify any assent at all. If it is for 12 months it must be in writing in order to be enforceable.

A word of mouth lease is valid it doesn't even have to be in writing.

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is the very issue in dispute. Was 12 months agreed from the outset. The o/p only made a declaration of intent. I am planning to stay 12 months. He did not say I undertake to stay 12 months. The essence of a legally binding agreement is offer and acceptance. There must be an unconditional offer and an unqualified acceptance. What we are told here is that there was a statement of intent which is a conditional offer. The landlord did not signify any assent at all. If it is for 12 months it must be in writing in order to be enforceable.

Very well, I think it would come down to subjective interpretation if it got that far. As I previously posited, many people's opinions would change if the roles were reversed and the landlord was trying to end the agreement early despite the tenant saying they intended to stay for 12 months.

Again, I don't see how Deasy's Act comes into play in this particular instance as the supposed agreement doesn't exceed 12 months, but I take your point about the ambiguity of a lease being inferred from what the OP has said.

Nonetheless, the OP has resolved the situation with their landlord. All's well that ends well.

Claw Hammer

Catalina Hot Litterbug wrote: »

A word of mouth lease is valid it doesn't even have to be in writing.

It may be valid but the question is whether or not it is enforceable.

Claw Hammer

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Very well, I think it would come down to subjective interpretation if it got that far. As I previously posited, many people's opinions would change if the roles were reversed and the landlord was trying to end the agreement early despite the tenant saying they intended to stay for 12 months.

Again, I don't see how Deasy's Act comes into play in this particular instance as the supposed agreement doesn't exceed 12 months, but I take your point about the ambiguity of a lease being inferred from what the OP has said.

Nonetheless, the OP has resolved the situation with their landlord. All's well that ends well.

A contract cannot be inferred subjectively.

mrslancaster

Claw Hammer wrote: »

....If it is for 12 months it must be in writing in order to be enforceable.

threshold and Citizens information websites say there is no legal obligation on LL to provide a lease or for tenants to sign a lease. which is it?

Browney7

mrslancaster wrote: »

threshold and Citizens information websites say there is no legal obligation on LL to provide a lease or for tenants to sign a lease. which is it?

A Lease agreement does not automatically infer a fixed term. If no lease is signed the tenancies act applies.

davo10

Browney7 wrote: »

A Lease agreement does not automatically infer a fixed term. If no lease is signed the tenancies act applies.

No, but do you know what does? "I plan to stay for 12 months". (It's right there in the first post). That "infers" both the tenancy and the duration. The RTA applies to all residential tenancies irrespective of whether they are written or verbal. Honestly this is the silliest thread on boards, the op has already posted that he/she has sorted it out.

Michael D Not Higgins

And there it shall end since we're running in circles.