Early terminating 2 years contract

[sundaymorningstaple]

When a house is sold, the Lease is part of the sale. The owner cannot kick you out. They would have to pay you off if the new owner wanted the house without encumbrances (sp?) But the lease is part of the sale and if the sale goes through to completion, you then have a new LL.

In fact a lot of investment sales are sold because of a long term sitting tenant as the buyer doesn't have to renovate the house as soon as he buys it, but it is producing income from the day he bought it.

[ecureilx]

Yes. Forgoing the deposit is no problem for us. We offered more than that. But the landlord wants 4 more months' rental on top of it. Then we think that is too much. Yes I am trying to find him a replacement but who knows if it will be successful. .

With rental crashing to nearly half, I bet the landlord wants to cash out on you, as he's unlikely nowadays get a tenant to pay similar rental..

[Max Headroom]

SF, in those cases, unless stipulated differently in the lease, the LL would need to ask the tenant if he or she is willing to terminate the lease early. In property boom times, the tenant can usually look forward to a cash sweetener. In property downturns, when a sweetener is unlikely, the tenants can decide to stay put.

I know this, because it happened to me in 2005. I opted to stay put, although I did permit viewings by potential buyers to take place In my presence.

[Max Headroom]

Sorry SMS, saw your message post-submission of mine.

[yul26]

Unfortunately, that is really the case - I don't have a dip clause. The termination clause only says if the premise is damaged and not suitable for living, and there is a reimbursement clause saying I should reimburse the commission fee if the terminate prematurely. However, it does not clearly point out in what situations I can exercise it and notify period. So yes I think it is a fixed contract.

I already realized my big fault. The agent went through the TA with me, and of course he avoid to show me the worst case. When I asked the question, he just said normally we just find a replacement and you are then free to go. I am curious if there really exist such sue cases that the tenant leaving Singapore is finally determined by the court to pay the entire lease? I assumed there should be some default rights for both tenant and landlord even it is not defined in the TA, isn't this the case for Singapore? For example,
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-ar ... singapore/
This link says "A tenancy may be terminated only when either the landlord or tenant gives the appropriate notice to quit the tenancy". Is this a default clause? I also learned from an agent that HDB suggested that the TA should include such a notify period clause from 2 years ago.
I learned from some earlier post in the forum that the landlord has the obligation to migrate the risk by trying to find a new tenant. If I recommend a reasonable profile but he does not like, isn't this his fault?

If we really go to a court, is the result for sure to be that I need to pay the rest of the lease? I mean, leaving Singapore is not what I wanted but forced by the renewal problem. It is a quite common issue and I assume there must be many examples that we can refer to right? I found there is a Small Claims Tribunal for mediating such things. Should I approach them for help?

Thanks for all your replies. Of course I am not against any LL, just try to find a amicable way to solve this very common issue.

[yul26]

In the meantime I am trying to find him a replacement, but of course he can reject. Hopefully this can be a happy ending for both ...

[Max Headroom]

If all else fails, just start dropping the asking rent by healthy increments. The odds of finding a replacement tenant will be better. Once you've found one, all you then have to do is top up the difference. Beats having to pay the full whack.

Incidentally, so long as you don't come up with some Charles Manson-type or perhaps a bankrupt, I don't think the LL can reject anyone on the basis of "profile".

[yul26]

If all else fails, just start dropping the asking rent by healthy increments. The odds of finding a replacement tenant will be better. Once you've found one, all you then have to do is top up the difference. Beats having to pay the full whack.

Incidentally, so long as you don't come up with some Charles Manson-type or perhaps a bankrupt, I don't think the LL can reject anyone on the basis of "profile".

Thanks a lot for the suggestion. Yes finding a replacement is the better way to go. I have started doing that.

[Wd40]

I said nothing, just forget it.

Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk

[singaporeflyer]

@WD40, please do not suggest something that will make the OP's life in SG tough, if he intends to come back later.

[Wd40]

@WD40, please do not suggest something that will make the OP's life in SG tough, if he intends to come back later.

ok

[sundaymorningstaple]

Yes, Wd40, but don't forget one of our virtues here. We don't suggest that people do things that are either illegal or immoral. It just makes it rough on the next party AND it could be construed as giving the wrong advice publicly and open us up for a lawsuit.

moderator

[yul26]

Yes, Wd40, but don't forget one of our virtues here. We don't suggest that people do things that are either illegal or immoral. It just makes it rough on the next party AND it could be construed as giving the wrong advice publicly and open us up for a lawsuit.

moderator

Thanks for the suggestion. Of course nobody wants to do illegal or immoral. If we go to the courtroom, I know that I will 100% lose, it is just how much I should compensate. Sorry but it sounds a bit unreasonable if I definitely need to pay the entire lease since I leave this country unexpectedly. That is why I tried to find out similar sue cases to understand the standard of the judges here. I can provide more reasons besides the job renewal why I need to leave Singapore. Will they firmly stick to the paper, or consider some commonsense?

[yul26]

OP, I will be shot for saying this. But do a runner. Just leave. Tell the owner you are leaving on a certain date and they can keep the deposit. Nothing more. They can sue you but they will have to keep the house vacant. Which they are unlikely to do. Once you leave the country, good luck for them to get money from you.

I have no sympathy for such landlords who try to milk tenants. You have already been reasonable by offering to find a replacement tenant.

I have broken tenancy agreements twice before and both times landlords have accepted forfeiture of deposit. Most tenants find even that unreasonable and fight with the landlord. Until now I haven't heard anyone breaking tenancy and paying anything more than the deposit forfeiture.

Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk

Thanks for sharing this. I hope I have reasonable LL as you had. One concern for mine is the declining rental market. His justification is that his unit might be vacant for more than 3 months so that I have to fill in the gap. Anyway, I will negotiate. Meantime, trying to find next tenant. I don't think it will be so hard to find a replacement if we offer competitive price.

[Wd40]

Yes, Wd40, but don't forget one of our virtues here. We don't suggest that people do things that are either illegal or immoral. It just makes it rough on the next party AND it could be construed as giving the wrong advice publicly and open us up for a lawsuit.

moderator

OK point noted, Sorry about that.I agree, this sort of stuff, is better sent via PM. Anyways, OP has got my message so I will edit my post.