Validity of verbal contracts with an estate agent

When I moved here a year ago, the concept of an immobilien was completely alien. I still don't get it.

Back home if you want to buy a property there are fees associated with going to a real estate agent whose job it is to sell the property; they will take you around all the places they have for sale and show them to you.

But renting? I have never been shown a rental property by anyone other than the owner or property manager. The immobilien fulfills neither function. What exactly do they do to merit their fees? Wouldn't it be easier on both renters and landlords to cut out these "professional middlemen?"

And while I'm ranting...how many times has this happened? You see a place, it's perfect, but when you go to sign the contract all the terms have changed! Then they try to tell you "Well, you wanted to rent the place so now we have a verbal contract." What a load of bull. So far as I can tell, the purpose of these people is to try to scam money out of you by (legally!) lying about real estate.

Maybe some fine representative of the profession can explain to me how I'm all wrong, I would love to hear it.

I think you're ranting about the Makler, not Immobilien. Just like this thread: Maklers and rental accommodation agents

The Makler will:

- Put adds
- Answer your questions
- Show you the place
- Deal with some of the legal stuff

If you do not like it then find a place with no Makler / no provision.

The landlord does not care because he does not have to pay anything (at least in Berlin/Brandenburg). So, it is a tenant's problem and he gets a service for free.

Do I like Maklers? No.

Then you tell them " A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on..."

It´s as legally binding in Germany as it is in the UK ...

Legal Binding Agreements and Verbal Contracts

How do they prove you agreed to rent a place if nothing is written down?
I don't see how it's enforceable. So long as two people swear you agreed to something, you have to do it? Please.

Any new clauses in a written contract based on a verbal contract constitute a new offer which only becomes valid on acceptance (Angebot und Annahme). If they insist that the verbal contract is binding then it is binding for - tadah! - both parties. If they are not willing to stick to the original offer and acceptance themselves the contract cannot become valid.

Never happened to me, no. Not in 20 years of being here. In any case, as has been stated by someone else, the terms are standard, legally regulated rental contract terms. If by some chance the contract didn't adhere to those (but mostly they use the standard forms you can buy in stationer's shops), you could refuse to sign.


Whetehr they can prove it is another issue. But if you have verbally agreed, then yes, you are bound to it. Of course, if the terms were actually changed, you could back out again. But the terms aren't changed.

Since you confused the word Immobilie with Makler, I suspect that what most likely happens is that you misunderstand what you are being told. Maybe you should take along a German speaker with you to look at places. Or at least get them to explain the contents of a normal standard rental contract.

In Canada there are also agencies who will find tenants for owners of apartments and condos. It's viewed from another perspective, however, with the finding being done on behalf of the owner rather than the renter. The difference is that it is the owner who has to pay the fees or commission, often one month's rent, rather than the renter paying extra fees. Here in Germany it is the opposite, with the renter paying the fees rather than the owner. I guess that here it is seen as a service for people looking to find a place, rather than a service for people who are offering a place for rent.

No. Every conversation, all contracts, everything was in both English and German.
My flat was advertised as "Pets welcome." When I went over the contract with the landlord, it said "No pets." This was a dealbreaker, but the maklar (immobilien? I suspect I have got the terms confused) swore that I had entered into a "verbal contract" to rent the place and could be sued if I backed out.

So, I showed her the conflict between the ad and the contract and told her I would simply countersue if she tried it (my company offers free legal support to expats for exactly this sort of situation). She then started hemming and hawing and tapdancing and after a couple of days claimed to have "worked out an agreement" with the landlord: She had only "misunderstood" the landlord's requirements for pets, and I would have to wait until their "old, sick cat," whom I was assured was on his last legs, died before getting my own pet. They also knocked about 6% off the rent to sweeten the pot. So I took it.

Come to find out the cat in question is only about a year old and, despite the claims made by the maklar, does not have cat cancer...despite having this "cat death clause" appended to my rental contract...so apparently this written contract is worthless, but me saying "Wow, this is a great apartment, I'd like to rent it, let's start on the paperwork" constitutes a valid binding agreement. Or, in other words, if you are a foreigner, whatever the locals say, goes.

He he he... there's one born every minute. To a lot of people verbal contract is worth jack shit. Always has been always will be.

My advice: get the cat. According to rental law, you are allowed to have a "Kleintier", i.e. a small animal which does not disturb other tenants in the building. Anything written into a contract which states the contrary is null and void. There IS a grey zone in the law as to whether a cat is in fact a Kleintier, however if the landlord in the same building has one, he is not going to win a case against it being one.

I also don't get why there would be trouble because of another cat. Your cat isn't going to be running around free in the apartment building and crossing paths with the landlord's, is it?

Insist on a written amendment to the lease permitting cat ownership*. Tell the Maklerin that you will speak to your employer about her shifty behavior; I'm assuming that your employer places people in rented apartments regularly and may even have recommended her.

*On a sideline: Cats are social animals and generally bored to tears without a playmate. The amendment should read "Dem Mieter ist gestattet, bis zu zwei Katzen in der Wohnung zu halten" or similar. There also may be a clause obliging you to cover any damage caused by your cat/s. Don't forget to purchase private liability insurance, it covers such damages.

Not sure where you got that from. Domestic cats are somewhat social but often -- and happily -- solitary.

woof.

Immobilienmakler

Maklervertrag

Note the word "generally".
Personal experience. When Schleck was put down Moscia went frantic looking for her and calmed down once Emily joined our happy little family. When I broke down after hearing of a death in the family I emerged from the pillows to see both cats standing at my side looking for all the world as if they were asking, "What's the matter?". Hexi and Cleo may not hang all over each other all day long but don't mind having a romp and chasing each other all over the apartment every now and then.

And to get this back on topic: I have written permission to own two cats but have housed up to four without negative consequences (except having to look carefully before sitting down, there were cats everywhere).

Aren't you looking at it the wrong way?

The immobilien / makler works for the landlord, not the tenant. They earn their money from finding tenants, sorting out issues in the place etc. It's a service. If I ever wanted to rent out my flat, I'd pay someone to do all that for me. I wouldn't waste my time doing it myself.

Certainly, when I rented in the UK, I did so through an agent but still had contact with the landlord herself on various matters.

As to the cat matter, an advert or whatever is presumably an "invitation to treat". You are the one making the offer (ie. to live in the place). No contract until that's done. So no contract based on any ad.

If the makler works for the landlord, then the landlord should pay the bill. If I'm paying for something, then I'm the customer!

Really?? Just so I understand this: Someone advertises an apartment with certain features, say for example it has a reserved parking spot. You look it all over, it's great, and you start the paperwork--but then they bring you a contract that says "Under no circumstances are you allowed to use the parking spot, or even own a car." The fact that the contract contradicts the ad doesn't invalidate anything, but now I'm in a "verbal contract?"

This explains a lot. Everyone I know said I was in for a headache when it came to renting here--essentially that I should expect stuff promised but not delivered and all the law on the side of the landlord, nothing supporting the tenant. Ugh!

Now we're getting down to legal nitty-gritty. A contract not including a vital feature can be contested, the same applies to fraudulent misrepresentation.

§123 BGB
Eine Anfechtung wegen arglistiger Täuschung: setzt gleichzeitig voraus: eine Täuschungshandlung,

• die der Täuschende arglistig, also vorsätzlich vorgenommen hat,
• und durch die ein Irrtum erregt, verstärkt oder unterhalten worden ist,
• der für die Abgabe der Willenserklärung ursächlich war.

So if you sign a contract excluding the use of the parking space although it was part of the original agreement and the Maklerin is aware of that fact you can back out of the contract.

If you sign a contract excluding pets after relying on the Maklerin's verbal assurance you commit an error (Irrtum) and just might be able to contest the contract (§119 BGB). I don't think, however, that a German court will consider the permission to have pets a vital feature.

At this part in this (by now, hypothetical) timeline, nothing has been signed yet--but my understanding is, you are bound by your verbal "agreement" to rent whereas the landlord/maklar are not bound by anything promised up until this point...regardless of what the contract says.

Whether or not something is "vital" can be sort of subjective. I looked at this place specifically because I was trying to find a pet-friendly apartment...ergo it is not a "vital feature" like running water or heat but it is my own qualification and one that was specified in the advertisement.

So, in order to bring in prospective tenants, they can promise all kinds of things and then they're not required to deliver, but you have obligations on you just by saying you like the apartment. This has come up several times with friends, usually dealing with renovations.

Again: If the written document differs in the least from the verbal agreement the landlord/Maklerin is making a new offer, you do not have to accept it. Don't let them browbeat you. If the place is perfect in every other way insist on a written clause permitting you to have a pet/pets up to a limited number as stated in the ad and preliminary negotiations.

Does your company have a legal department? Run it by them.

Disclaimer: This is non-professional advice, for verification of finer points of the law or for the law's applicability to your situation speak to a lawyer.

If there's any way of dumping on a Makler, I'd say go for it.

These low-life, parasitic scum charge huge fees for doing sod all. They're even worse than lying, incompetent British estate agents.

If you can get one over on them, I'll buy you at least a couple of beers

I don't who "Everyone I know " is, but they obviously don't live in Germany! German law is so tenant friendly, it's not true!

This is a completely different matter from signing contracts you don't understand and then being astonished and disappointed when a court supports the conditions of the contract. That said, most conditions in a rental contract which are weighted against the tenant (such as an absolute prohibition on having pets) would be struck down in German courts.