Need to break my lease...HELP

Discuss about where to live, renting a property, tenancy issues, property trend and property investment in Singapore.
Post Reply
User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16516
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:43 pm
Location: K. Puki Manis

Post by JR8 » Sun, 04 Mar 2012 9:28 pm

Interesting Teck21, I had thought you were doing a bit of late night shooting from the hip, but now you’ve added flesh to the bones I can see where you are coming from.

I believe this right to nominate a replacement tenant has been discussed here before (in fact perhaps by you!), but not for quite a long while, so it is good to see it raised again together with some perhaps related statute.
teck21 wrote:The TA is a contract, and a contract that leaves the issues of penalties for breaches unsaid.
Not necessarily. The previous TA I had was very specific about the penalties for leaving early. There certainly is a problem of poorly drafted TAs, we’ve seen several examples of gibberish quoted here before, but I have to say it seems pretty common for tenants to barely read them never mind understand the consequences of what they are signing.
teck21 wrote: ‘Contract Damages
8.8.9 First, if the breach of contract by one contracting party (the ‘party-in-breach’) causes loss to the other (the ‘aggrieved party’), the party-in-breach may be ordered by the courts to compensate the aggrieved party in money damages for those losses, in lieu of the primary obligations left unperformed under the contract. However, contractual damages (which are compensatory and not punitive in nature), is not the only judicial remedy available. Other types of remedies may be available in lieu, or sometimes, in addition to damages, depending on the nature of the obligation which has been breached. [See Section 13 below].
This just seems to underline that the landlord is entitled to full mitigation of his losses, but is not in addition entitled to punitive damages.
ZZM 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[*][/b]. 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.
In my experience even if you are dealing with an outright cowboy landlord (got that T-shirt) a judge is extremely reluctant to deny them any of their rights (thought: maybe that would be considered punitive?). So if you have a say 12 month contract that a tenant is trying to break after 6 months, I would say that they landlord is fully entitled to his 12 months rent. He is also due his costs if he needs to seek a replacement tenant, and he is due compensation for the additional time involved in dealing with it. This seems to be X9’s line of thinking too.

Hence I don’t agree with [*][/b], as the market rent has no bearing on the landlords right to receive the existing contractual rent.

The issue of the replacement tenant is the big IF to me. You might have a right to find one and nominate him, but the landlord is under no obligation to accept him, and until when/if he does the original tenant is still fully on the hook. How many times could a landlord reject a ‘reasonable’ replacement tenant, who knows I expect that would have to be tested for reasonableness in court. But in parallel with what I was saying earlier I think you would have an uphill job proving that a landlord was acting unreasonably in rejecting one time, two, more? replacements tenants, as the flipside would be that he is being forced to accept someone he does not want, in place of his existing contract (and rights). I’d be interested if SGn court cases and their judgements are archived on-line. Because if so it would be very interesting to see how the courts deal with tenancies being broken, nomination of replacements tenants etc.

The other major IF in all of this is not down to the law and how a court might regard it, but down to circumstances. And it is this that unscrupulous landlords might be taking advantage of. When an expat tenant leaves the LL is working on an assumption that the tenant leaving the country. Now given how reluctant aggrieved tenants seem to be to even go to the SCT, I’d imagine that not many tenants are going to appoint a lawyer and remotely conduct a case after they have left the country. Landlords know that.

Singapore Property Search

 

teck21
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 1:37 pm

Post by teck21 » Tue, 06 Mar 2012 9:58 am

JR8 wrote: The issue of the replacement tenant is the big IF to me. You might have a right to find one and nominate him, but the landlord is under no obligation to accept him, and until when/if he does the original tenant is still fully on the hook. How many times could a landlord reject a ‘reasonable’ replacement tenant, who knows I expect that would have to be tested for reasonableness in court. But in parallel with what I was saying earlier I think you would have an uphill job proving that a landlord was acting unreasonably in rejecting one time, two, more? replacements tenants, as the flipside would be that he is being forced to accept someone he does not want, in place of his existing contract (and rights). I’d be interested if SGn court cases and their judgements are archived on-line. Because if so it would be very interesting to see how the courts deal with tenancies being broken, nomination of replacements tenants etc.

The other major IF in all of this is not down to the law and how a court might regard it, but down to circumstances. And it is this that unscrupulous landlords might be taking advantage of. When an expat tenant leaves the LL is working on an assumption that the tenant leaving the country. Now given how reluctant aggrieved tenants seem to be to even go to the SCT, I’d imagine that not many tenants are going to appoint a lawyer and remotely conduct a case after they have left the country. Landlords know that.
Yeah, the devil as always, is in the detail and interpretation. I've not heard of a single case of tenancy breaches of contract being heard in court here, so I don't suppose any one has practical experience of how it might pan out.

I suppose it's just important that tenants know that just because they have signed a tenancy agreement does not give the landlord carte blanche to impose whatever penalties he or she desires.

User avatar
madaboutplastic
Regular
Regular
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 7:31 pm
Location: singapore
Contact:

Post by madaboutplastic » Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:49 pm

if u intent to have the law give u leeway, then bastardise yourself first. law is inert, only thoughts need no visa or dip clause.

keep a keen eye for choked pipes, cracked toilet bowls, falling skies and make a big deal out of it.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Property Talk, Housing & Rental”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests