How Can I Sue A Subtenant for Breaching an Oral Lease in Pennsylvania?

Full question:

I am a college student that lives in an apartment with one roommate. I sublet my room in the apartment to an individual while I was away for summer break. We had a verbal agreement that they would pay three months worth of rent (part of May, all of June, all of July, and part of August) to cover the sublease. Since I was still at the apartment in the beginning of May, I paid the full month's rent, though I left after the first week. The sub lessee immediately moved in, not having to pay rent for the month of May. My roommate and the sub lessee had an argument in July, which therefore caused the sub lessee to move out. Since the sub lessee moved out early, they claim that they do not have to pay for the third month's rent. Additionally, since we did not have a written agreement, they feel justified in the fact that they are not obligated to pay back the rent that I paid in May. My argument is that even though they moved out early, they should still be obligated to pay the third month's rent due to our verbal agreement.I am not at all knowledgeable on court procedures, and I have two main questions: (1) am I justified in bringing the sub lessee to court? In other words, is this a legitimate argument? And (2) which form of court should I go through? If I did my research correctly, I believe it is the Magisterial District Court in the Minor Courts system. Is this correct?

• Category: Landlord Tenant
• Subcategory: Lease Termination
• Date: 04/07/2025
• State: Pennsylvania

Answer:

Yes, that is the correct court system for a landlord/tenant case. If the lease terms don't allow for early termination, the tenant may be held liable for the remainder of the lease, unless the tenant can prove a breach of the lease terms by the landlord. However, the landlord has a duty to mitigate (lessen) damages by making reasonable attempts to relet the premises. This generally means that the landlord must advertise the premises and make attempts to show the premises to prospective tenants. It will be a matter of subjective determination for the court, based on all the facts and circumstances involved, whether reasonable attempts have been made to relet the premises. Some of the factors that may be considered, among others, include the reasons for turning down the prospective tenants and whether the landlord is in fact out of town and unable to show the premises.

Generally, where the roommate is not named and has not signed the lease, the roommate is considered a subtenant and pays his/her portion of the rent to the named tenant on the lease, who stands in the position of landlord to the subtenant and who is responsible for the full amount of the rent to the primary landlord. In the case of oral agreements, it is often one person's word against the other's

If you wish to use the legal system to resolve the dispute, you may want to review the following general information regarding contract law and breach of contract actions:

Contracts are agreements that are legally enforceable. A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The purpose of a contract is to establish the terms of the agreement by which the parties have fixed their rights and duties. An oral contract is an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract may generally be enforced the same as a written agreement. However, it is much more difficult with an oral contract to prove its existence or the terms. Oral contracts also usually have a shorter time period within which a person seeking to enforce their contract right must sue. A written contract generally provides a longer time to sue than for breach of an oral contract. Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law. Private law generally refers to the terms of the agreement between the parties, as parties have freedom to override many state law requirements regarding formalities of contracts. Each state has developed its own common law of contracts, which consists of a body of jurisprudence developed over time by trial and appellate courts on a case-by-case basis.

An unjustifiable failure to perform all or some part of a contractual duty is a breach of contract. A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury. A lawsuit for breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies awarded are designed to place the injured party in the position they would be in if not for the breach. Remedies for contractual breaches are not designed to punish the breaching party. The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.

Restitution is a remedy designed to restore the injured party to the position occupied prior to the formation of the contract. Parties seeking restitution may not request to be compensated for lost profits or other earnings caused by a breach. Instead, restitution aims at returning to the plaintiff any money or property given to the defendant under the contract. Plaintiffs typically seek restitution when contracts they have entered are voided by courts due to a defendant's incompetence or incapacity.

Rescission is the name for the remedy that terminates the contractual duties of both parties, while reformation is the name for the remedy that allows courts to change the substance of a contract to correct inequities that were suffered. In order to have a rescission, both parties to the contract must be placed in the position they occupied before the contract was made. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach.

Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to force another to perform their obligations under a contract, using the theory of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise was made; reliance on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable; there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise; the reliance was detrimental; and injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance must be shown to involve reliance that is reasonable, which is a determination made on an individual case-by-case basis, taking all factors into consideration. Detrimental means that some type of harm is suffered.

Reasonable reliance is usually referred to as a theory of recovery in contract law. It was what a prudent person might believe and act upon based on something told by another. Sometimes a person acts in reliance on the promise of a profit or other benefit, only to learn that the statements or promises were either incorrect or were exaggerated. The one who acted to their detriment in reasonable reliance may recover damages for the costs of his/her actions or demand performance. Reasonable reliance connotes the use of the standard of an ordinary and average person.

Please see the information at the following link:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/T/SpecialCourts/default.htm