Real Estate Ethics Questions

[sunny88]

An oral agreement cannot binding even with a “witness”. How can you ever prove it if it’s not written down. Again, no written contract, no agreement!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sunny88]An oral agreement cannot binding even with a “witness”. How can you ever prove it if it’s not written down. Again, no written contract, no agreement![/quote]

I did not really read this thread closely because the OP never indicated whether this was a CA transaction and the posted details of the relo on the surface seem like an inside fraud could have been committed by his/her agent but the details are a little murky to me. I am unfamiliar with contract law outside of CA.

CA Civil Code section 1624 is known as the Statute of Frauds and applies to an offer to purchase real estate. A counter-offer creates a new offer and thus terminates the original offer. All offers to purchase real property in CA are void if not in writing.

CA Civil Code sec. 1624 reads, in pertinent part:

“The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:

(c) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.” (emphasis added)

See:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul15.htm

I worked on a local trial where our client DID prevail on an oral RE-related contract but it was not a purchase offer or listing contract. The client proved to the jury the existence of the oral contract by the testimony of percipient witnesses and partial performance on both sides.

Oral contracts are legal in CA. The problem lies in proving one existed.

CA Civil Code sec. 1622 reads:

“All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.”

(see link above)

I am not an attorney and this post does not constitute legal advice.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sunny88]An oral agreement cannot binding even with a “witness”. How can you ever prove it if it’s not written down. Again, no written contract, no agreement![/quote]

I did not really read this thread closely because the OP never indicated whether this was a CA transaction and the posted details of the relo on the surface seem like an inside fraud could have been committed by his/her agent but the details are a little murky to me. I am unfamiliar with contract law outside of CA.

CA Civil Code section 1624 is known as the Statute of Frauds and applies to an offer to purchase real estate. A counter-offer creates a new offer and thus terminates the original offer. All offers to purchase real property in CA are void if not in writing.

CA Civil Code sec. 1624 reads, in pertinent part:

“The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:

(c) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.” (emphasis added)

See:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul15.htm

I worked on a local trial where our client DID prevail on an oral RE-related contract but it was not a purchase offer or listing contract. The client proved to the jury the existence of the oral contract by the testimony of percipient witnesses and partial performance on both sides.

Oral contracts are legal in CA. The problem lies in proving one existed.

CA Civil Code sec. 1622 reads:

“All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.”

(see link above)

I am not an attorney and this post does not constitute legal advice.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sunny88]An oral agreement cannot binding even with a “witness”. How can you ever prove it if it’s not written down. Again, no written contract, no agreement![/quote]

I did not really read this thread closely because the OP never indicated whether this was a CA transaction and the posted details of the relo on the surface seem like an inside fraud could have been committed by his/her agent but the details are a little murky to me. I am unfamiliar with contract law outside of CA.

CA Civil Code section 1624 is known as the Statute of Frauds and applies to an offer to purchase real estate. A counter-offer creates a new offer and thus terminates the original offer. All offers to purchase real property in CA are void if not in writing.

CA Civil Code sec. 1624 reads, in pertinent part:

“The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:

(c) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.” (emphasis added)

See:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul15.htm

I worked on a local trial where our client DID prevail on an oral RE-related contract but it was not a purchase offer or listing contract. The client proved to the jury the existence of the oral contract by the testimony of percipient witnesses and partial performance on both sides.

Oral contracts are legal in CA. The problem lies in proving one existed.

CA Civil Code sec. 1622 reads:

“All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.”

(see link above)

I am not an attorney and this post does not constitute legal advice.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sunny88]An oral agreement cannot binding even with a “witness”. How can you ever prove it if it’s not written down. Again, no written contract, no agreement![/quote]

I did not really read this thread closely because the OP never indicated whether this was a CA transaction and the posted details of the relo on the surface seem like an inside fraud could have been committed by his/her agent but the details are a little murky to me. I am unfamiliar with contract law outside of CA.

CA Civil Code section 1624 is known as the Statute of Frauds and applies to an offer to purchase real estate. A counter-offer creates a new offer and thus terminates the original offer. All offers to purchase real property in CA are void if not in writing.

CA Civil Code sec. 1624 reads, in pertinent part:

“The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:

(c) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.” (emphasis added)

See:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul15.htm

I worked on a local trial where our client DID prevail on an oral RE-related contract but it was not a purchase offer or listing contract. The client proved to the jury the existence of the oral contract by the testimony of percipient witnesses and partial performance on both sides.

Oral contracts are legal in CA. The problem lies in proving one existed.

CA Civil Code sec. 1622 reads:

“All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.”

(see link above)

I am not an attorney and this post does not constitute legal advice.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sunny88]An oral agreement cannot binding even with a “witness”. How can you ever prove it if it’s not written down. Again, no written contract, no agreement![/quote]

I did not really read this thread closely because the OP never indicated whether this was a CA transaction and the posted details of the relo on the surface seem like an inside fraud could have been committed by his/her agent but the details are a little murky to me. I am unfamiliar with contract law outside of CA.

CA Civil Code section 1624 is known as the Statute of Frauds and applies to an offer to purchase real estate. A counter-offer creates a new offer and thus terminates the original offer. All offers to purchase real property in CA are void if not in writing.

CA Civil Code sec. 1624 reads, in pertinent part:

“The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:

(c) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.” (emphasis added)

See:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul15.htm

I worked on a local trial where our client DID prevail on an oral RE-related contract but it was not a purchase offer or listing contract. The client proved to the jury the existence of the oral contract by the testimony of percipient witnesses and partial performance on both sides.

Oral contracts are legal in CA. The problem lies in proving one existed.

CA Civil Code sec. 1622 reads:

“All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.”

(see link above)

I am not an attorney and this post does not constitute legal advice.

[Author]

Posts