> If wasn't GTG that made this mistake, it was one leasing agent,

In retrospect, then perhaps your selection was not the best choice of phrase for the thread title?

Actually, it makes perfect sense, since it was the Park Harvey that did, not the ownership and management of GTG.

Well he wrote the initial post before the upper GTG management cleared it up.

I have lived in so many apartments that it would make your head spin, and I have to tell you the best landlords I have EVER rented from are Gardner Tanenbaum. They put NYC to shame, and I have NEVER had an issue with their business practices... If you pay your rent on time, and are a good resident, you will have NO issues. I would go so far as to say they are the only people I recommend renting from.

The fact that the lady lied to you is indeed unethical, but it is not illegal. She provided you with paperwork which explained the situation, and the paperwork is the binding contract (in other words, it's the only thing that really matters.) The fact that you rushed through the paperwork or did not read it is really up to you. Unless she literally took your hand and forced you to sign the paper before you read it, it's unfortunately on you.

A verbal contract is only as good as the paper it's written on.

Well, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. You are speaking in a general practical sense, not a legal sense. What she did was, indeed, unlawful. There is a difference between the terms "illegal" and "unlawful."

Right; there is a difference between the two. If I'm not mistaken, it is unlawful but not illegal, which is exactly what I said if you read my post. .

The binding contract of the situation was the paperwork, not a conversation with the receptionist or whoever. Anything she "said" could be considered misrepresentation but the fact that the OP did not read the terms he/she signed for is nobody's fault but their own. If he/she tried to take any official action, chances are he/she would be laughed off, since he/she specifically signed to the terms stating that the deposit was non-refundable.

Rule of thumb: ignore what a business contact says (they're only looking to hook you to buy, not in painting a completely accurate picture); pay particular attention to what you sign.

Technically, it is neither illegal or unlawful because there is no evidence that she said anything at all.

:P

There are lots of people throwing around terminology in this thread without knowing what they're talking about.

Hopefully no one uses this thread for advice as to what to do in a similar situation.

Responding to just the last post, Toadrax, you might want to look up the Oklahoma Rules of Evidence and see what they have to say about "declarations against interest."

(not that that'd really be of much use [if that's all you have] to you considering the burden on the plaintiff for proving fraud).

-- and that's all I've got to say about that.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I wouldn't count on that. There probably isn't enough money at stake to make it worth pursuing, but just because a person signed something doesn't mean they knew what they were signing. And just because something was verbalized and not written does not mean it cannot be proven in court. It is entirely possible for the leasing agent to have been deliberately distracting the lessee from reading the document before signing. There are circumstances that could make a legal document less than legally binding. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know sometimes you shouldn't just give up. Sometimes you should actually ask a lawyer. Sometimes you actually have a case, despite what others might have you believe.

Wrong again.

This is not specifically directed at you, but why do people think what's on TV and what they hear from friends is an accurate description of the law. I'll rephrase it yet again- oral contracts are 100% enforceable. While making the proper showing in court may be difficult, that speaks to practical applications.

It's unlawful because it's unlawful, and a sworn affidavit would be evidence.

It is unlawful IF she lied, which hasn't been proven yet.

I had to sign a contract over something last week, I am going to think of something creative to say about the person that made me sign it.

Oh I know, I will say that she told me that I had to sign that I had READ it and that I never agreed to doing it... this sounds fun.

Toad -- you're wrong.

You can either just admit that now or keep digging your hole. This isn't a matter of opinion type thing. You're just plain 'ol wrong.

Since you're apparently unable to look it up for yourself, assuming something like this would ever go to trial, here is the relevant rule:

40 O.S. 2801(B)

The statement, therefore, would be admissible against the declarant. Under (B)(1), et seq., she'd obviously be at trial, she'd lie, then the plaintiff's lawyer would be able to use the statement to impeach her.

We wouldn't even have to go there because the statement is also admissible under (B)(2)(a) since it is the party's own statement and it's being offered against her. (since the leasing agent is an agent of the leasing company, the statement is admissible against both the agent and the leasing company).

-- I'm not painting the whole picture here on purpose, I'm talking about one small, itty-bitty narrow issue, not the whole issue because I don't want anyone in the future to ever construe this thread (or at least anything I've said here) as being advice as to what to do in a similar situation. The purpose for which I am offering this information is to illustrate that you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Right.. you're going to admit a statement from her that you can make say whatever you want because it wasn't written down and totally from your memory.

I'm 100% confident that a good lawyer can pull this off, that is why I am contemplating what wonderful things I can make up in the future.

That's why we have evidentiary burdens and juries.

By all means, keep digging that hole.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Toad, it would be my sworn affidavit that would be proffered as evidence, is what I meant. Affidavits are evidence.

I understand that, I am just saying that you can write whatever you want in that affidavit.

Not saying that you would, just saying that as an objective third party it would be presumptuous of us to assume that she lied and that you are telling the truth just as it would be presumptuous of us to assume that you lied and that she was telling the truth.

That is why I chimed in with the distinction between something that "is" and something that "would be if".

A good lawyer can screw over anyone in court, but that has nothing to do with reality. Lawyers forget that...

Well Toad, then we might as well stop all court proceedings everywhere since people have the ability to lie or fabricate evidence.

Despite your cynical viewpoint, or maybe in support of it, all court proceedings a based on a pretty bug assumption- that people are generally going to tell the truth. If you can't get past that assumption, then you're never going to appreciate or respect a court.

DING DING DING!

What do you know.. I don't appreciate or respect courts. :P

Not only can people lie or fabricate evidence, many times they are simply wrong. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear and our mind fills in missing pieces from an incomplete story to force things to make sense. This stuff is real and well documented.

This is why we have juries and evidentiary burdens. If the plaintiff in this case only has his sworn affidavit (and that's it) and the evidence is 50/50 that the Defendant committed fraud, then the case is probably going to get dismissed because as a matter of law, plaintiff can't meet his evidentiary burden if the affidavit is all he has.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Now imagine if there was some way for companies to avoid this problem..

Imagine if they could somehow.. document what was talked about in a manner that all parties agreed on?

Oh I know, a written contract!

THEN imagine if one party lied about what that instrument says!!

You lost every credibility you had in this discussion as soon as you said you don't appreciate or respect courts. Well whoopty-freaking-doo for you. You can bet your ass you're lucky as can be we have these courts to protect you, whether you like them or not.

If someone lies about what the contract says.. than look at the contract and follow that. Maybe if they had two different copies of the contract that said different things, that might be an issue that needs to be looked at.

The courts have not protected my family.. ever. We would be much better off without.

Try running a business and have to deal with this crap. What do you need to do to protect yourself? Make the customer watch a DVD video explaining the contract in deep detail, video tape them describing what the contract says, give them a standardized test to make sure they are competent enough to understand what "you don't get your money back" means? Nothing like not being able to hire a new employee cause you just blew all your money defending yourself from a false claim.

Who protects us from the courts?

I haven't seen my niece in over 4 years because of the wonderful courts and may never see her again. I'm not even accused of doing anything wrong, but my brother is. He asked for a jury trial and they denied him one, they did not let him see her for over 1000 days because it took them that long to figure out that he had the right to. Half a million in legal fees later the Judge has ordered him to admit to abusing her or he will never see his child unsupervised again. He did nothing wrong so he can not admit to abusing her so the case is not going to be dismissed.. ever.

I assure you, that we know how the courts work and I am so glad they have protected my family.

I appreciate the purpose of courts, but any system that does not take even basic measures to prevent itself from being abused is a failure. Part of doing that is to consider ways that people might abuse the system and put checks in place to prevent that.

What about protecting employees from employers that don't believe courts should allow them redress? if you really mean what you say you do (I don't think you do), then the courts are in place to protect us from people like you that thinks courts are pointless and no one should use them or have access to them. Also, clearly, since you're so brilliant, I can't imagine anyone ever getting the best of you...no no no. Makes me warm at night to know that Toadrax is beyond ever having someone wrong you unlawfully. Jeez, I hope no one hits you on the way home today or swindles money from your business. You'd have to go to court! Goodness!

Your argument is completely a red herring. The point here is that you don't let your employees LIE to people to get them to sign a contract. Would you need a video to explain that? I mean, your posiiton is borderline learning-impaired here- what you're saying is that anyone should be able to lie to you about what a contract says or what its effects will be, and then it's a game of "GOTCHA! You signed it, it's your fault!"? In your model, commerce would grind to a complete halt. Think it through.

I am going to say a special prayer tonight to thank God I'm not as jaded, cynical, and have so little faith in others as you. You probably hate lawyers and hate judges and hate courts...until you need one, then you'll want the best damn one you can afford and you'll be begging the court to make things right.

Chances are, your brother lost the kid for doing somehting AT LEAST a little suspect. It's not impossible, but it's certianly highly improbable that DHS just wanders around snatching children out of loving, nuturing hosueholds. We (ostensibly) protect children here in America. Once you go over the line with a kid, it's hard to prove you're innocent, and there's a good reason for that, because children as obviously very helpless. And you don't have any sort of mandated right to see your niece. Sorry, that's just not how it works. I don't have any right to demand a court that I can see my first cousin once-removed that happens to be a minor. I'm not saying courts are infallible or that they don't make mistakes. I'm just saying your opinion is uninformed, ignorant of basic law, and impracticable in the real world. Sorry for your troubles and all, but blaming someone else isn't the answer. If a false claim against your business was really that false, then countersue the crap out of them to teach them a lesson. The system works (most of the time). You think you have some sort of righteous anger now, you have no IDEA how the court system protects you on a daily basis. But you just go on enjoying that freedom from harm and theft and turn your nose up just the same like an unappreciative child. Maybe the funniest part of all this is that you're implying your opinion is more well-reasoned and wiser than, oh, the amalgation of several hundred years of the most brilliant legal minds in England and the United States....ol' Toady's got'em beat. Again, the system isn't perfect, but it works pretty well when you let it.