lease
Lease Agreement Error
<p>When I received my lease it stated $800 per month for a term rent of $10,800. I knew this was a mistake because it was stated in the beginning that rent was $900 per moth. When I corrected the property manager she sent the lease back for $800 per month and $900 per term. I signed and she signed the new document. My resident portal now says I owe $900. Can I hold her to the $800 per month?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Can I hold her to the $800 per month?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is somewhat unpredictable from a purely legal standpoint. I assume that <em>term</em> means year, since that is what would lead to the rate discrepancies.</p>

<p>The discrepancy of rates <em>$800 per month</em> versus <em>$10,800 in one installment</em> triggers the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem" rel="nofollow noreferrer">doctrine of <em>contra proferentem</em></a>, thereby favoring your position that the rent agreed upon is $800 per month.</p>

<p>Additionally, it is noteworthy that despite/upon your notification the property manager sent a "corrected" version preserving the rate of $800/month. That affords to you the argument that the manager/landlord <em>bore the risk of mistake</em> in the sense of <a href="https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/1981-Restatement-Second-of-Contracts-1981.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Restatement (Second) of Contracts</em></a> at § 154.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the landlord is not necessarily barred from "reformation" of the lease even though the mistake clearly was her fault. See <em>Restatement</em> at § 157, and the principle of "<em>avoid[ing] injustice</em>" (<em>Restatement</em> at § 158(2)). From this standpoint, the matter would boil down to ascertaining the parties' intent at the time of formation of contract, and your ability to prove that the $800/month constituted a material inducement to you to enter the lease. That being said, a clause akin to "<em>[t]his agreement supersedes and overrides any prior or contemporary agreement</em>" would weaken the landlord's position.</p>

<p>By way of comparison, if you were sticking to the option of "<em>$900 per term</em>" as offered in the "corrected" version of the lease, the landlord's chances to prevail would be significantly higher. That is because an argument of <em>unconscionable exchange</em> is likelier to outweigh the doctrine of <em>contra proferentem</em> regarding the discrepancy in the "corrected" lease.</p>
