Hmm. This isn't helpful I know, but I wouldn't start from here. You should always 'protect the downside', to use a Richard Branson expression.mayali wrote:Hi,
Im hoping against hope someone can guide me on what to do with an issue that started with our landlord recently.
My company is transferring me out of Singapore and I still have about 6 months left on my apt lease. My landlord has been very nice in the past about various things but has suddenly turned! He is demanding that I pay him the entire years rent even though I wont be in SIngapore as there is no diplomatic clause in my contract.
Easy to be wise after the event, I know, but if there is no other get-out clause in the contract, then the landlord has probably got you over a barrel. Caveat emptor (or should that be caveat tenens in this case?). When the landlord removed the DC, why did you not object? With the benefit of hindsight, he/she may have been setting you up for this exact scenario.My current contract is a new one as I am staying on in the same apt for the past four years. We used to have the clause but the landlord himself had it removed and it didnt occour to us that it would cause a problem.
LOL. good one! Unfortunately I think you are in a very weak position here. If you voluntarily signed the contract then the landlord has every right to enforce it, including by 'throwing legalities" around.Can anyone guide me on how to go about dealing with this issue? He is throwing legalities in my face. Is there any law in Singapore that protects the tenent?
Paying him full rent for remaining duration of your lease while he sits and does nothing, or worse, collects rent from a new tenant is total and utter BS.mayali wrote: He is demanding that I pay him the entire years rent even though I wont be in SIngapore as there is no diplomatic clause in my contract.
Can anyone guide me on how to go about dealing with this issue? He is throwing legalities in my face. Is there any law in Singapore that protects the tenent?
Maybe so but he still needs to find a new tenant and this is you who brakes the lease. A standard practice with the diplomatic clause is to give a 3 month notice. This mean it is generally agreeable such time may be needed to find a replacement. He also has to pay a new commission so his damages in this part are equal to what is left out of the current one (prorated basis). Then again, you are the one violating the contract causing him troubles and he deserves some compensation. How much? I don't know what the courts are ruling in favor of the LL in such cases but this is how probably the LL sees it and the court may see it too because it seems justifiable. So how far away are we from the 6 rent equivalent? 4 months or so on the counter and you surely caused a lot of damages to the apartment. What is your deposit, one or two month?mayali wrote:Teck21:I AGREE....THIS IS BS!!! Sadly though...he is the B and the S is falling on me!!!!
The funny thing is that if we do leave and he gets new tenants, he'll be btter off as the rents in our area have gone up.
zzm9980 wrote:Definitely not fair and it is BS, I agree, but it is Singapore law.
Right, it's just that in most "1st world" jurisdictions, there are a lot more consumer protections available than there are in Singapore, especially regarding housing. But then, in Singapore, you can be a HOMEOWNER on only S$1000/month, so I guess the powers that be don't see a need for rental protectionsJR8 wrote:zzm9980 wrote:Definitely not fair and it is BS, I agree, but it is Singapore law.
Pedantic point... I'd suggest it is closer to generic (or at least in this case derived on law of England & Wales) contract law, than SGn law.
I.e. the contractual obligations that have been signed up to are just that. It is not peculiar that you have to observe them simply because it is in SG.
The TA is a contract, and a contract that leaves the issues of penalties for breaches unsaid. This has been used as a stick to beat tenants for ages with legally unenforceable threats.JR8 wrote:What enshrines these 'rights' which you suggest exist?
Exactly, it is not like buying a container full of perishables which the seller will take a full loss on if the buyer refuses to make payment.zzm9980 wrote:That's interesting teck. So If you can demonstrate ready willingness to make reasonable compensation for terminating the lease, that should in theory go a long way in court. Paying the remainder not always being reasonable depending on the market and remainder of the term. If the rates are "up", and you're willing to find the new tenant, that seems "compensatory" enough to me. Not sure how courts will agree.
But what happens if your TA specifically spells out what happens if you break the lease term early? That would overrule this, correct?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest