Hello,

We expressed interest in a motorhome that a friend of ours owned. He had it for sale online. After we looked at it, we told him we'd like to buy it, and told him that we would have a check for him sometime this week. Yesterday we came across a motorhome that was $2000 cheaper. We decided to buy this one instead of the one from our friend. We called him up to explain the situation and thought that he would be OK with it, and that he would just repost his ad. Instead, he blew up at us, telling us that he had a contractor come in and do $1200 worth of work on his house, and that he paid the contractor thinking that he was going to sell his motorhome. Now is is telling us that either we buy the other motorhome AND pay him $1200, or he is taking us to small claims court and suing us for the amount. He said that we had a verbal agreement. How do verbal agreements hold up in the state of Oklahoma? What do we do now? We've already purchased the cheaper motorhome.
Thank you!

Hello,

We expressed interest in a motorhome that a friend of ours owned. He had it for sale online. After we looked at it, we told him we'd like to buy it, and told him that we would have a check for him sometime this week. Yesterday we came across a motorhome that was $2000 cheaper. We decided to buy this one instead of the one from our friend. We called him up to explain the situation and thought that he would be ok with it, and that he would just repost his ad. Instead, he blew up at us, telling us that he had a contractor come in and do $1200 worth of work on his house, and that he went ahead and paid the contractor thinking that he was going to sell his motorhome. Now is is telling us that either we buy the other motorhome AND pay him $1200, or he is taking us to small claims court and suing us for the amount. He said that we had a verbal agreement. How do verbal agreements hold up in the state of Oklahoma? What do we do now? We've already purchased the cheaper motorhome.
Thank you!


Yes, verbal agreements are admissible as evidence in Oklahoma.

The Judge will hear your side of things; the Judge will hear his side of things; the Judge will decide.

It sounds like you admit you had a verbal agreement with your friend and I don't see any other defense to it.

He will argue contract law - you broke the contract, he is entitled to keep the deposit. There was no agreement/discussion about the deposit if the deal didn't "go" so -

Absent that agreement, I don't see it that way. If he doesn't lose any money - he sells the motorhome for the same price or more than you agreed to, he has no case against you.

I'm sure others will weigh in with their opinions.

Yes, verbal agreements are admissible as evidence in Oklahoma.

The Judge will hear your side of things; the Judge will hear his side of things; the Judge will decide.

It sounds like you admit you had a verbal agreement with your friend and I don't see any other defense to it.

He will argue contract law - you broke the contract, he is entitled to keep the deposit. There was no agreement/discussion about the deposit if the deal didn't "go" so -

Absent that agreement, I don't see it that way. If he doesn't lose any money - he sells the motorhome for the same price or more than you agreed to, he has no case against you.

I'm sure others will weigh in with their opinions.

Thank you for your response. I did want to say that we did not put a deposit down on this motorhome, and we did not sign any paperwork for this. It was through craigslist that we saw his ad in the first place.
Thank you!

Thank you for your response. I did want to say that we did not put a deposit down on this motorhome, and we did not sign any paperwork for this. It was through craigslist that we saw his ad in the first place.
Thank you!



I don't know that it matters much - it's an agreement (apparently) between both parties. I would say you don't need a deposit to bind the deal. I don't see that the verbal contract was contingent on the down payment.

Of course, he may just do nothing - not everyone who threatens to sue actually does.

I don't know that it matters much - it's an agreement (apparently) between both parties. I would say you don't need a deposit to bind the deal. I don't see that the verbal contract was contingent on the down payment.

Of course, he may just do nothing - not everyone who threatens to sue actually does.

Thank you for responding. He said that because he paid an electrician to do some work on his house thinking that we were going to buy the motorhome, that he is suing us for that amount ($1200). We also did not give him a specific date as to when we were going to pay for this motorhome. I have saved his voicemails in case he does actually feel like sueing. I just don't understand how if you want to buy something off craigslist that the seller can sue you for not following through on the deal. I strongly believe that he thinks he can sue us just because he knows us personally. My husband asked him if he planned on putting the motorhome back on Craigslist, and he said "NO" It's like he's not even trying to sell it now just because we didn't buy it.

We concur with Judykaytee's initial answer.

Even if the contract is breached by you the seller must still prove that he took all reasonable steps to mitigate his damages AND that he has incurred damages.

A repair or improvement to the property is not necessarily a damage since it will provide value to the present or future owner.

We concur with Judykaytee's initial answer.

Even if the contract is breached by you the seller must still prove that he took all reasonable steps to mitigate his damages AND that he has incurred damages.

A repair or improvement to the property is not necessarily a damage since it will provide value to the present or future owner.

Thank you very much. I am really freaking out right now! Any responses I get are very valuable!

Why would the verbal agreement to buy be binding if a) there was no deposit made, and b) the 'customer' changed his mind.

Wouldn't part of the verbal agreement be the actual sale? If there was no sale, he was only a 'potential' buyer.

If another person had showed up before lia did and made a better offer, or paid cash on the spot, could they sue him? Would he then be liable for a verbal contract?

Why would the verbal agreement to buy be binding if a) there was no deposit made, and b) the 'customer' changed his mind.

Wouldn't part of the verbal agreement be the actual sale? If there was no sale, he was only a 'potential' buyer.

If another person had showed up before lia did and made a better offer, or paid cash on the spot, could they sue him? Would he then be liable for a verbal contract?


There was no provision in the oral contract - which is what this is - that it would be bound by a deposit. In my eyes the contract was: I will pay you X and you will title the property over to me. Nothing else. You cannot create and enforce a provision when none existed at the time the contract was made.

This was a contract to purchase - the actual sale is anticipated and the purpose of the contract. The actual sale is not legally a provision of the sale - know what I mean? It's the purpose of the contract, oral or written.

Yes, if someone else had purchased the property before the OP showed up, the OP could sue the seller on the verbal contract.

Ahhh okay, that makes sense.

I wonder if, had the purchaser phoned this fellow and said that he was unable to secure the money to buy, what would have happened.

Would it still be binding?

Ahhh okay, that makes sense.

I wonder if, had the purchaser phoned this fellow and said that he was unable to secure the money to buy, what would have happened.

Would it still be binding?



It would appear, if someone wanted to be insistent, that there was no financing approval/arrangement as part of the oral contract so yes, if the purchaser had broken contract the seller could have sued - of course, the seller (as I have said and others have agreed) has a duty to attempt to sell at the original price and can only sue for damages for the broken contract. Given this situation there very well may not be damages.

Ahhh okay, that makes sense.

I wonder if, had the purchaser phoned this fellow and said that he was unable to secure the money to buy, what would have happened.

Would it still be binding?

Hello, actually I think he would still be going after us for the $1200 because he said that he turned other prospective buyers away. I've been checking Craigslist this morning, and he has still not reposted the motorhome. He also told my husband that he has no plans of reposting the motorhome, his sole interest is going after us now. (Great... ) I did contact a civil lawyer this morning, and he said that verbal agreements to hold up in the state of Oklahoma. He said that he would write this guy a letter though in the hopes of stopping this situation from going any further.

It would appear, if someone wanted to be insistent, that there was no financing approval/arrangement as part of the oral contract so yes, if the purchaser had broken contract the seller could have sued - of course, the seller (as I have said and others have agreed) has a duty to attempt to sell at the original price and can only sue for damages for the broken contract. Given this situation there very well may not be damages.

Yes, exactly. The only "damages" were that he paid an electrician $1200 to do some work on his house. He wants to now sue us to get that money back because he was under the impression we were going to buy the motorhome. I don't think it was wise of him to spend money before he actually had made the sale, but that is just my opinion. If we did pay the $1200 though, wouldn't we be part owners in that motorhome though? My husband made that point last night.