Can we sue for the cost of moving our home based on breach of an oral contract?
Get Legal Help Today
Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
Can we sue for the cost of moving our home based on breach of an oral contract?
We moved our mobilehome onto property based on the owner’s promise that we could live there as long as he owned the property. In exchange, my boyfriend worked on his equipment whenever he needed. We had nothing in writing only a verbal agreement in front of several witnesses. My boyfriend has kept up on his end of the agreement. Now after less than a year he wants us to move. The county has fined him because there were no permits when we put our mobile in. We offered to pay for the permits when we put our mobile here but he said there was no need. Now he says that he will evict us.
Asked on August 16, 2010 under Business Law, California
Answers:
S.L,. Member, California Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 13 years ago | Contributor
You could sue the owner for breach of contract. Although the contract was oral, you detrimentally relied on the owner's assurances that you could move the mobile home onto the property as long as the owner owned the property. Detrimental reliance means that you would not have moved the mobile home onto the property without the owner's assurance that you could stay there as long as the owner owned the property. In addition to the detrimental reliance establishing the existence of the oral contract, your boyfriend working on the owner's equipment as part of the agreement would also provide additional evidence of an existing contract because a bargained for exchange of services (working on the equipment in exchange for having the mobile home on the property) is an essential element of a contract. The fact that were several witnesses to the verbal agreement also provides you with additional evidence of an existing contract.
Your damages (the amount of compensation you are seeking in your lawsuit) would be the cost of moving.
An alternative remedy instead of seeking damages would be to sue the owner and seek specific performance of the contract. Specific performance would be a court's decision ordering the owner to perform his obligations under the contract by allowing your mobile home to remain on the property. This might be preferable to the inconvenience of moving your mobile home to another location.
S.L,. Member, California Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 13 years ago | Contributor
You could sue the owner for breach of contract. Although the contract was oral, you detrimentally relied on the owner's assurances that you could move the mobile home onto the property as long as the owner owned the property. Detrimental reliance means that you would not have moved the mobile home onto the property without the owner's assurance that you could stay there as long as the owner owned the property. In addition to the detrimental reliance establishing the existence of the oral contract, your boyfriend working on the owner's equipment as part of the agreement would also provide additional evidence of an existing contract because a bargained for exchange of services (working on the equipment in exchange for having the mobile home on the property) is an essential element of a contract. The fact that were several witnesses to the verbal agreement also provides you with additional evidence of an existing contract.
Your damages (the amount of compensation you are seeking in your lawsuit) would be the cost of moving.
An alternative remedy instead of seeking damages would be to sue the owner and seek specific performance of the contract. Specific performance would be a court's decision ordering the owner to perform his obligations under the contract by allowing your mobile home to remain on the property. This might be preferable to the inconvenience of moving your mobile home to another location.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.