Finding an apartment

[Strong Eagle]

It happens when the tenant wishes to secure the unit today but the unit is only available to move in say 2 weeks later when the TA will be signed. So something is required to bind both tenant and LL to the deal during this two weeks before signing the TA. Can't expect LL to hold the deal for tenant without LOI or TA.

Except that the landlord is under no obligation to honor the LOI. He signs nothing and if he gets a better deal then you are up sh*t creek whether you signed the LOI or not.

[JR8]

There is no need for LOI if the parties can go immediately to signing the TA. The LOI is just a prelude to the TA. It happens when the tenant wishes to secure the unit today but the unit is only available to move in say 2 weeks later when the TA will be signed. So something is required to bind both tenant and LL to the deal during this two weeks before signing the TA. Can't expect LL to hold the deal for tenant without LOI or TA.

The OP was being asked to pay a month's rent, simply in order that their offer might be put forward. No suggestion the price or summary terms are negotiated never mind agreed, more like 'the LL won't get to hear your offer unless you put a months cash down'.
Any LOI is more of a token gesture, a revocable 'statement of intent'. Refer my previous re: not being bound to a contract you haven't seen etc.
The 'something required to bind LL and new-tenant' is a new tenancy dated for the date the LL/tenant agrees the tenant will take possession. So why don't LLs do that? Sounds to me like they prefer to keep options open and work competing offers off each other (and perhaps keep LOI-$) when they finally figure out what it is they're going to do.

Going straight to signing the TA is fine. But I as a tenant would be more careful, especially if actual taking over of the apartment is at a later date.

Not clear to me why, and why you imagine the 'LOI' you describe gives any honest/genuine comfort to the tenant.

I am writing as a landlord, not agent. I am more than happy if a tenant wants to go straight to signing of TA without me having to handover my unit at the same time. But I am saying it is risky for the tenant.

As am I. Can't see why straight into the TA is risky for the tenant, or perhaps in a SGn context, how it is riskier than starting by entering into the completely one-sided and opaque risk of having an LOI before even agreeing the terms of the TA.


PS/OT. If E41st is re: NYC, then I used to live a stroll on down @ E38th.

[ecureilx]

our agent is asking us to give her one months rent and sign a letter of offer??? Not sure it is actually. Letter of intent???

Times are bad, and agents are getting desperate!!

I won't commit

[ecureilx]

It happens when the tenant wishes to secure the unit today but the unit is only available to move in say 2 weeks later when the TA will be signed. So something is required to bind both tenant and LL to the deal during this two weeks before signing the TA. Can't expect LL to hold the deal for tenant without LOI or TA.

Except that the landlord is under no obligation to honor the LOI. He signs nothing and if he gets a better deal then you are up sh*t creek whether you signed the LOI or not.

Very few stories of tenants who changed their mind make rounds .. while stories of LLs who shopped for better deals are too many to count ..... in this market market now, there are too many properties with fewer tenants ....

[x9200]

There is no need for LOI if the parties can go immediately to signing the TA. The LOI is just a prelude to the TA. It happens when the tenant wishes to secure the unit today but the unit is only available to move in say 2 weeks later when the TA will be signed. So something is required to bind both tenant and LL to the deal during this two weeks before signing the TA. Can't expect LL to hold the deal for tenant without LOI or TA.

Going straight to signing the TA is fine. But I as a tenant would be more careful, especially if actual taking over of the apartment is at a later date.

I am writing as a landlord, not agent. I am more than happy if a tenant wants to go straight to signing of TA without me having to handover my unit at the same time. But I am saying it is risky for the tenant.

As I wrote above, LoI, under normal circumstances has no binding power. If LL didn't cash the cheque the tenant has virtually no chance to get the apartment especially that the TA still can be defined the way the tenant would not accept. So how is it protecting the tenant?

Of course, I may be wrong so please, give me any example of Singapore court ruling in favour of the tenant based on the standard LoI with cheque payment where the cheque is not cashed.

[east41st]

It happens when the tenant wishes to secure the unit today but the unit is only available to move in say 2 weeks later when the TA will be signed. So something is required to bind both tenant and LL to the deal during this two weeks before signing the TA. Can't expect LL to hold the deal for tenant without LOI or TA.

Except that the landlord is under no obligation to honor the LOI. He signs nothing and if he gets a better deal then you are up sh*t creek whether you signed the LOI or not.

If LL accepts the LOI and good faith deposit, LL has to sign off on the LOI.

[Strong Eagle]

If LL accepts the LOI and good faith deposit, LL has to sign off on the LOI.

It means nothing. It is not an enforceable agreement. The only enforceable agreement is the TA. Therefore, a tenant is a fool to ever provide money upon signing of the LOI... only at the TA should money change hands.

[east41st]

The OP was being asked to pay a month's rent, simply in order that their offer might be put forward. No suggestion the price or summary terms are negotiated never mind agreed, more like 'the LL won't get to hear your offer unless you put a months cash down'.
Any LOI is more of a token gesture, a revocable 'statement of intent'. Refer my previous re: not being bound to a contract you haven't seen etc.
The 'something required to bind LL and new-tenant' is a new tenancy dated for the date the LL/tenant agrees the tenant will take possession. So why don't LLs do that? Sounds to me like they prefer to keep options open and work competing offers off each other (and perhaps keep LOI-$) when they finally figure out what it is they're going to do.

To clarify. The LOI is put forward AFTER the tenant's offer is accepted by LL. LOI is a prelude to TA and contain agreed terms of the tenancy. Terms that are brought up during the negotiation and offer stage. These terms will be in the eventual TA. The TA is then prepared which will be signed by both parties on the day of taking over of premise or day of start of tenancy. So far this has been the procedural steps from my experience as LL.

Not clear to me why, and why you imagine the 'LOI' you describe gives any honest/genuine comfort to the tenant.

The reality is as far as LL is concerned as long as there is no good faith deposit or TA, LL is free to continue to accept other offers. Likewise tenant is free to shop for better options.

As am I. Can't see why straight into the TA is risky for the tenant, or perhaps in a SGn context, how it is riskier than starting by entering into the completely one-sided and opaque risk of having an LOI before even agreeing the terms of the TA.


PS/OT. If E41st is re: NYC, then I used to live a stroll on down @ E38th.

As explained LOI does contain agreed terms.
Why I say it can be sometimes risky for tenant to go straight to TA? Take a scenario tenant confirms a unit today and his offer is accepted by "LL". However tenant can only take over unit end of the month as unit is currently occupied. Or unit is vacant but "LL" needs time to rectify things, etc. These are common scenarios, right? Should the tenant sign the TA now even though he is not taking over the unit today? Don't forget you will be forking out the advance rent etc upon signing the TA. End of month come taking over you could not contact the agent and realise there is also no such "LL". You have been scammed. There have been reports of such scams in the press. The culprits will be easily caught but it is all very troublesome for the tenant.

I am quite surprised many are not aware of the LOI. All my TAs so far with my tenants were preceded by LOI. In my view the LOI exists as an additional due diligence step in the practical process of securing tenancy and signing of TA. As LL I honour it and the terms stated on it.

As LL I have encountered more than once where even though TA is signed, the cheques bounced. But I have already handed over unit to "tenant". These are scammers too and troublesome for LL. Hence good faith deposit is necessary and to be cleared before allowing tenant to take over unit. Maybe I am just an unlucky LL but without good faith deposit there is no deal.

PS: Btw E41st is re: Vancouver BC

[BBCWatcher]

I'm with East41st on this one. Properly managed and executed, a Letter of Intent arrangement can be an effective step to "escalate trust." There are risks (on both sides) in jumping straight to a Tenancy Agreement, and there are risks (on both sides) in not jumping to anything.

A LOI arrangement is not perfect and cannot mitigate all risks, but nothing can.

[east41st]

As I wrote above, LoI, under normal circumstances has no binding power. If LL didn't cash the cheque the tenant has virtually no chance to get the apartment especially that the TA still can be defined the way the tenant would not accept. So how is it protecting the tenant?

Of course, I may be wrong so please, give me any example of Singapore court ruling in favour of the tenant based on the standard LoI with cheque payment where the cheque is not cashed.

You will be hard pressed to find any such court rulings in the first place unless the contested sums are in the high five figure range at least. Truth is tenancy disputes rarely go to court because it is just a waste of time and money.

Yes you are right. But the LOI does have binding power, just less than the TA.

[Strong Eagle]

Yes you are right. But the LOI does have binding power, just less than the TA.

Bullsh*t! It only has binding power if the potential tenant is stupid enough to fork over money to the landlord without a signed TA. Show me one example of where a LOI was actually enforceable. You can't because it's not.

[east41st]

Yes you are right. But the LOI does have binding power, just less than the TA.

Bullsh*t! It only has binding power if the potential tenant is stupid enough to fork over money to the landlord without a signed TA. Show me one example of where a LOI was actually enforceable. You can't because it's not.

Strong words there. I can't show you not because it is not, but because I am neither the court nor someone who has the time and bother to dig up such stuff. Btw the bolded sentence is actually a contradiction. You are saying it does have binding power. Just saying...

[x9200]

As I wrote above, LoI, under normal circumstances has no binding power. If LL didn't cash the cheque the tenant has virtually no chance to get the apartment especially that the TA still can be defined the way the tenant would not accept. So how is it protecting the tenant?

Of course, I may be wrong so please, give me any example of Singapore court ruling in favour of the tenant based on the standard LoI with cheque payment where the cheque is not cashed.

You will be hard pressed to find any such court rulings in the first place unless the contested sums are in the high five figure range at least. Truth is tenancy disputes rarely go to court because it is just a waste of time and money.

I believe it falls under the jurisdiction of SCT. SCT is cheap. Not?

Yes you are right. But the LOI does have binding power, just less than the TA.

I see. Any web page, documents, anything from a reputable legal source (SAL, established law company, etc etc.) where I could read about this binding power for a typical LoI?