Posted by Leonard Steinberg on January 21st, 2012

This week reminded us all about contracts when the architect of THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, Newt Gingrich, was exposed for allegedly attempting to re-negotiate his marriage contract with one of his ex-wives. Has the meaning of a contract changed over the years?

A contract is defined as an agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. Now we all know that the law is a rather maleable thing, even more so this week when we learned that even the king of the moral majority seemed eager to re-negotiate his contract with his wife. No-one was shocked about the Newt revelation: what was most telling was how even the ultra-conservative audience at this weeks CNN presidential debate applauded Newt for his contract breaking, even in the most holiest of contracts, a marriage. Surely this is the biggest flip-flop? Newt was actually ousted for his fixation on punishing President Clinton for his extra-marital dalliances (while in the midst of his own affair).

Now back to real estate: the question I ask to-day is that if the (supposed)most moral of people are quite comfortable re-negotiating contracts, practically changing the very nature of its intent, surely all contracts are very, very fragile…..at best?  I have found recently that more buyers and sellers seem to view contracts more lightly, and often arrive pre-closing or as late as the closing table itself and attempt to re-negotiate. A friend reminded me at dinner this week how at her closing, her buyers arrived and smuggly demanded a whole host of items (and money) that had never been discussed before. Of course, a contract does govern legal obligation, and often the only recourse to a conflict is a lawsuit. Most times the issues at hand are relatively minor and resolution is negotiated knowing the legal route would be more costly.

Minor contracts, the regular day-to-day promises and agreements we make seem to be under greater attack in my opinion. I am finiding more and more that some people hide behind the premise of the concept that ‘oh well, things change’ as a weak attempt to justify truly bad behaviour. The bad behaviour of individuals is always made worse by those around them who don’t voice their outrage at this bad behaviour. Its a slippery slope towards a really decayed society when a promise, contract or statement are always open to re-negotiation and re-interpretatio, especially when  the initial intent is to allow this. Some may call this lying, deception or even fraud. Breaking contracts is nothing new…..it has happened all through time….that still doesn’t make it the kind of behaviour we should endorse.

Lets remember that we are all better served when contracts are respected and honored.