Ambiguous statement in contract - can we use to to escape?

[willsheldon]

Hi there,

We would like to move out of the premesis we have rented. The contract is fairly standard, but there is an error in the term statment:

The landlord lets the Tennant the Premesis for a period of one year. 
The tenancy shall start on (and include) the 9th Febuary 2008 and shall 
end on (and include) the 8th Febuary 2010

This is an error, but in my eyes the implied meaning is that we have to pay for a year, over the course of the two year period. Am i right? How should i argue my case?

Thanks in advance for your coments

W.

 

[Gail_in_Georgia]

You can attempt to explain to a judge (should your landlord choose to file a lawsuit against you , believing you broke a two year contract) if you believed the lease ended February 8, 2009 why you continued to lease the rental (and I'm assuming paying rent) until now; four months later.


Gail

 

[dee_dub]

I certainly don't see where you derive the implied meaning you see. If there is ambiguity, it is whether your tenancy is for one year or two. There is no suggestion that your tenancy is for only one year but that you have two years to pay for it, which would be a very bizarre state of affairs indeed.

Is there anything else in the lease suggesting the term? Were there any discussions between you and the landlord about moving out on February 8 2009? If there were, then you might be able to convince a judge that the tenancy ended on that date, and you are now an overholding tenant, and are holding the premises on a month-to-month lease (or whatever the lease or your local law provides for overholding tenants).

 

[Gail_in_Georgia]

Most leases also list how much rent is due each month and the date this is due; for example "The total rent for the term hereof is the sum of ____________ dollars payable on the __ day of each month", thus ending your argument that you have two years to pay on a one year lease.

Gail