Hi guys,
I have got myself into a bit of a funny situation and would like to ask for a piece of advice.
I wanted to move out of my current flat and knew someone who had a room at their place, so I gave it some thought and told them i'd take it.
I started to look for a new flatmate for the old room and all that. A few weeks later, after some reflection, I realised I wasn't willing to move there anymore and told them so.
Now, the person in question has another two weeks to look for someone else (before the month ends) and receives benefits from the government (they pay their rent in full and give them some money for food).
I never signed a contract of any kind but they are claiming that German law says that even though it was a "contract" made by word of mouth I should give them money for the next two weeks (so half of the rent of this month).
They said they are not going to go to a lawyer to get money from me.
Should I be worried about this or just tell them to fuck off because they have no right to ask for the money?
I mean people change their minds, don't we? And since I hadn't signed or gave any deposit yet, I don't think I am obliged to give them part of this month's rent.
Please help
Ta,
sodax
Backing out of an oral rental contract - Germany
Obligation to pay or not?
I suspect that your friend wouldn't have declared the income from subletting to the government, and hence would be taking money as payment for something that s/he isn't paying. I don't know how German law works, but in Ireland you'd lose your housing benefit for those sorts of shenanigans. I can't imagine Germany would be any different.
Why don't you give the agency responsible for paying the rent on the house a quick ring to clarify the situation? Or suggest to your friend that you should probably do that to clarify? I'm guessing this lawyer nonsense will stop fairly quickly.
Why don't you give the agency responsible for paying the rent on the house a quick ring to clarify the situation? Or suggest to your friend that you should probably do that to clarify? I'm guessing this lawyer nonsense will stop fairly quickly.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand your post correctly you are saying the following:
1. You agreed orally to be roommates with someone.
2. That person tells the German government they are living alone, which is relevant for the government's paying the full rent.
3. That person planned to pocket any rent collected from you, keeping this a secret from the government. This person is committing criminal fraud.
4. After you backed out, that person objected, saying you have an oral contract and therefore a moral, if not a legal, obligation to pay.
5. That person is not planning to sue you, however. They just want you to feel bad and and to pay up to assuage these feelings.
Without points 2. and 3., I'd say you may have a legal problem. And without points 2. and 3., I would suggest you'd have to pay something (but less, if another roommate is found sooner).
Obviously this person is not going to sue because of the likelihood that their fraud against the government would come to light. It thus seems that the ethical question you need to sort out for yourself is if you feel a moral obligation to someone who is defrauding the government and who (at least on the surface) does not need your money to pay the rent since the government is already paying for this. If the person gives you any more grief about backing out, you might threaten to report him to the government.
1. You agreed orally to be roommates with someone.
2. That person tells the German government they are living alone, which is relevant for the government's paying the full rent.
3. That person planned to pocket any rent collected from you, keeping this a secret from the government. This person is committing criminal fraud.
4. After you backed out, that person objected, saying you have an oral contract and therefore a moral, if not a legal, obligation to pay.
5. That person is not planning to sue you, however. They just want you to feel bad and and to pay up to assuage these feelings.
Without points 2. and 3., I'd say you may have a legal problem. And without points 2. and 3., I would suggest you'd have to pay something (but less, if another roommate is found sooner).
Obviously this person is not going to sue because of the likelihood that their fraud against the government would come to light. It thus seems that the ethical question you need to sort out for yourself is if you feel a moral obligation to someone who is defrauding the government and who (at least on the surface) does not need your money to pay the rent since the government is already paying for this. If the person gives you any more grief about backing out, you might threaten to report him to the government.
i think there is no agency involved, the place it's privately rented.
surely they'd lose their benefits if the jobcentre knew he was subletting one of the rooms, but that's not something i'm considering doing.
surely they'd lose their benefits if the jobcentre knew he was subletting one of the rooms, but that's not something i'm considering doing.
QUOTE(mrjohnsoda @ May 15 2008, 5:43 pm) 
... a "contract" made by word of mouth ...
is a binding contract:
Mietvertrag auch mündlich wirksam
QUOTE
... Ein Mietvertrag kann auch mündlich abgeschlossen werden und ist genau so wirksam wie ein schriftlicher. Ein Vertrag ist dann zustande gekommen, wenn sich Vermieter und Mieter über das Mietobjekt, die zu zahlenden Miete und den Beginn des Mietverhältnisses einig sind ...
james, you understood the situation well and all the points you made were correct.
so it seems i'm on the safe side as i know things other people don't.
to be honest i wouldn't feel morally obliged to give them money in any case because 1. the agreement was only oral and 2. they made too much of a fuss when i said to them i didn't feel it would've been the right thing to do anymore.
so it seems i'm on the safe side as i know things other people don't.
to be honest i wouldn't feel morally obliged to give them money in any case because 1. the agreement was only oral and 2. they made too much of a fuss when i said to them i didn't feel it would've been the right thing to do anymore.
Proving there was an oral contract can be another matter, though, especially without, say, an email or text message trail.
miwild, i had no idea that was for real..
conquistador, as far as i'm aware there are no emails or texts we exchanged in which i agreed to move in.
conquistador, as far as i'm aware there are no emails or texts we exchanged in which i agreed to move in.
even if you/they had proofs like emails or text messages, you are on the safe side because they are on socialhilfe. in such a situation, if they really want to continue to get benefits from the government. They would do well not to threaten you. And they are surely not going to report it to anyone.
Yeah, while the contract is valid (as miwild said), they will not be able to go after you because what they were trying to do was illegal already.
So they screw over the state, and you screw them over, evens out I suppose.
So they screw over the state, and you screw them over, evens out I suppose.
Erm while I was looking for a new apartment, I agreed to take an apartment I saw. I even filled the crap application form with salary and personal details and gave it to the property management agent. She said she needs to do some "background" (schufa) check on me but added that it should not be a problem (to rent to me). After some thoughts, I decided not to take the apartment afterall. I wrote an email when I could not get her on the phone and that settled it. It was a verbal agreement but I guess it's fine since I did not sign the contract (and she needed to do background check on me??)
QUOTE
Verbal lease agreement
The advantage of the verbal contract is that all rights and regulations for both tenant and landlord are in direct compliance with the law insofar as no other verbal agreement to the contrary is met. For the tenant a verbal agreement generally means that s/he will not be bothered with the issue of cosmetic repairs nor are any advance payments for operating costs required.
The disadvantage of a verbal contract is that sooner or later the contracting parties get wrapped up in conflicts over what was actually or supposed to have been decided or what who wanted.
Rental contract in written form
The disadvantage of the verbal contract is the forte or the written contract. They are strictly prescribed if the contract at hand is either a fixed-term lease of over 12 months or a graduated or indexed lease.
The function of the written rental contract as well as the house rules and regulations is to inform the contracting parties of their rights and obligations. It always looks a bit different in real life. More often than not the contract is a monolithic 12-pager made up of a flood of more or less useful clauses one after the other. Each and every supposed right and obligation of both tenant and landlord are discussed in the minutest detail. This applies to both contracts drawn up by the landlords or property management as well as those so-called sample contracts or contracts from owners' associations or other groups. Many of the clauses included in these contracts are simply invalid - tenant rights are either watered down or excluded or vice versa because landlord rights are unduly reinforced.
The German Tenants' Association (DMB) has therefore developed a lease form which adheres to and meets legal regulations. The DMB rental contract is a fair balance between the interests of the two contracting parties, tenant and landlord. You'll find the above-mentioned contract together with the house rules and regulations in DMB's special publication "Das neue Mietrecht" (The New Tenancy Law).
Important: Before signing the contract the tenant should be clear on several essential points:
* How expensive is the apartment going to be?
* Fixed term or unlimited lease?
* Security deposit?
* Which clauses are valid, which clauses are not?
(Source: German Tenants' Association/Deutscher Mieterbund)
The advantage of the verbal contract is that all rights and regulations for both tenant and landlord are in direct compliance with the law insofar as no other verbal agreement to the contrary is met. For the tenant a verbal agreement generally means that s/he will not be bothered with the issue of cosmetic repairs nor are any advance payments for operating costs required.
The disadvantage of a verbal contract is that sooner or later the contracting parties get wrapped up in conflicts over what was actually or supposed to have been decided or what who wanted.
Rental contract in written form
The disadvantage of the verbal contract is the forte or the written contract. They are strictly prescribed if the contract at hand is either a fixed-term lease of over 12 months or a graduated or indexed lease.
The function of the written rental contract as well as the house rules and regulations is to inform the contracting parties of their rights and obligations. It always looks a bit different in real life. More often than not the contract is a monolithic 12-pager made up of a flood of more or less useful clauses one after the other. Each and every supposed right and obligation of both tenant and landlord are discussed in the minutest detail. This applies to both contracts drawn up by the landlords or property management as well as those so-called sample contracts or contracts from owners' associations or other groups. Many of the clauses included in these contracts are simply invalid - tenant rights are either watered down or excluded or vice versa because landlord rights are unduly reinforced.
The German Tenants' Association (DMB) has therefore developed a lease form which adheres to and meets legal regulations. The DMB rental contract is a fair balance between the interests of the two contracting parties, tenant and landlord. You'll find the above-mentioned contract together with the house rules and regulations in DMB's special publication "Das neue Mietrecht" (The New Tenancy Law).
Important: Before signing the contract the tenant should be clear on several essential points:
* How expensive is the apartment going to be?
* Fixed term or unlimited lease?
* Security deposit?
* Which clauses are valid, which clauses are not?
(Source: German Tenants' Association/Deutscher Mieterbund)
And this is you find at:
Deutsche Post Tenancy Law
Along with lots of other useful on rental law and all in English (although sometimes in German grammar), but not sure how up-to-date it is.
thank you all, i think i'll have just have to threaten them to report them to the authorities since they keep sending offensive e-mails..
You are both in the wrong and two wrongs don't make a right. You broke a verbal contract and the renter in question is scamming the Gov and the taxpayers. You should both feel ashamed.
Seems to me it was an illegal contract to begin with, so it's actually null and void. You have no legal or moral obligation to honor it.
Don't threaten to report the person, do it.
If someone came into your house and stole money you wouldn't hesitate to call the police, why tolerate it when someone steals your tax dollars?
Don't threaten to report the person, do it.
If someone came into your house and stole money you wouldn't hesitate to call the police, why tolerate it when someone steals your tax dollars?
QUOTE(mrjohnsoda @ May 16 2008, 11:03 am)
... i think i'll have just have to threaten them to report them to the authorities ...
Better think twice before you go ahead ... it could be perceived as coercion under the German Criminal Code (StGB)
QUOTE
Section 240 Coercion
(1) Whoever unlawfully with force or threat of an appreciable harm compels a human being to commit, acquiesce in or omit an act, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) The act shall be unlawful if the use of force or the threat of harm is deemed reprehensible in relation to the desired objective.
(3) An attempt shall be punishable ...
(1) Whoever unlawfully with force or threat of an appreciable harm compels a human being to commit, acquiesce in or omit an act, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) The act shall be unlawful if the use of force or the threat of harm is deemed reprehensible in relation to the desired objective.
(3) An attempt shall be punishable ...
oh dear.. i did actually send them an email saying they were free to take the risk of going ahead to get their money if that is what they wanted.. meaning i could also visit the rathaus..
all i got back was an insult, i hope it's all over now..
all i got back was an insult, i hope it's all over now..
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.