Wear And Tear: Easier Said Than Understood

Print

There are lots of comfortable phrases and concepts we all use without ever thinking about what they really mean or how they play out. One example is the well-worn formulation: “ordinary wear and tear excepted.” We see it all the time. Everyone writes it into their leases (and often into property acquisition contracts). To be sure, there are variations. One example is: “wear and tear, damage by fire or damage from any other cause covered by … insurance excepted.” Another is: “fair wear and tear and … excepted.” Regardless of how many words are used with any of these approaches, they all rely on the meaning of “wear and tear.”

Let’s start by trying to define “wear and tear.” Certainly, there are many perfectly fine ways to do so (and certainly there are “contorted” ways to do so if you don’t like the “result” of using a proper definition). Today, we’ll lift one from a 1969 [“time-honored”] decision from a California court:

The exception of ordinary wear and tear contemplates that deterioration will occur by reason of time and use despite ordinary care for its preservation.

The most common place we see an exception for “wear and tear” is in a lease’s surrender provision. What condition must the leased space be in when “returned” to the landlord? What does a tenant have to repair or restore that it didn’t have to repair or restore during the course of its tenancy? [Read more…]

Print

Attend Oxford University And Avoid Ambiguous Leases, Mortgages, And Other Agreements

Print

We just couldn’t pass up on this one even though newspapers across the country have brought it to the attention of the general public. We think we have a reader-relevant take on it, so our planned posting for this week will have to wait.

One of our the English language’s punctuation marks is highly educated – the Oxford comma. Ruminations uses the Oxford comma. Maybe you should as well. What is it? What does this 12th century city in central southern England, the City of Dreaming Spires, know about this particular punctuation mark? [Should we take a short pause, comma-like, to mention that there is a university there, one with 38 colleges? Not today. Oops, too late.]

The “Oxford comma” is the one placed before the “and” at the end of a serial list: “We use the Oxford comma when we list items such as A, B, and C.” [It’s known as the Oxford comma because it was traditionally used by printers, readers, and editors at Oxford University Press. To be clear, we aren’t talking about a list that includes the “printers, readers and editors at Oxford University.”] [Read more…]

Print

Fools And Bankruptcy And Broken Leases

Print

What is an herbaceous plant that has jagged leaves covered with stinging hairs? Some may think it is a “nettle.” We’re thinking it is “bankruptcy law.” That’s a reason why we’ve steered away from doing any Ruminating about nettles. Today, we’re shunning the 300 year old advice from Alexander Pope in his An Essay on Criticism when he warned: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Ruminations is fairly characterized as “criticism” and we have been duly warned.

For some reason, explicable, but slightly off-base, leasing professionals are asked: “What can a landlord recover when its bankrupt tenant rejects its lease?”

Our starting point is the bankruptcy law itself. Its most relevant provision reads thusly: [Read more…]

Print

What Does Difluoromonochloromethane Mean To Landlords And Tenants?

Print

Today, Ruminations will seem to be discussing difluoromonochloromethane. Though it might seem that way, we’re actually using it as a proxy for a more general “suggestion.” But, that will need to wait.

Difluoromonochloromethane has been a remarkably useful chemical compound. If you know about it at all, you probably know it as “R-22.” If you do, then you can skip right over the next sentence. R-22 is a hydrochlorofluorocarbon-based refrigerant used in about half of this country’s commercial air conditioning systems. If has some other, less common, uses but when it comes to HVAC, it is “king.” Down the road, however, it will be abdicating its office. The process began a number of years ago, but the closer we get to 2020, the clearer this will be.

This refrigerant is an ozone-depleting substance. Regardless of any reader’s position about climate change or global warming, no one thinks that destroying atmospheric ozone is a good thing. So, 30 years ago, following a series of meetings in Montreal, lots of countries, the United States included, signed an international treaty. To implement that treaty, those countries, including the United States, embarked on separate programs to end the use of ozone-depleting substances.

Here’s a short translation of what the United States did with respect to R-22 starting in 1993. Manufacture or import of equipment using R-22 refrigerant after 2009 was banned. Production or import of R-22 is banned after 2019. [By the way, by 2030, the entire class of chemical compounds known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons will no longer be manufactured in, or imported to, the United States. [Read more…]

Print

I’m Frustrated; Let’s Call It A Day And Part Company.

Print

In 1902, a tenant rented premises for the purpose of watching the upcoming two-day coronation procession of Edward VII. The premises were promised to be a great place from which to view what was expected to be a gala event. A one-third deposit was posted upon signing and the balance was to be paid at least two days before the scheduled coronation. There was a written agreement covering the two-day rental, but it made no reference to Edwin VII’s big day.

King Henry became ill and the procession (parade and all) was cancelled. The tenant didn’t pay the rest of the rent. The landlord sued for the balance of the rent and, in response, the tenant countersued for return of its deposit.

In 1861, an entertainment impresario contracted for use of a music hall, intending to present “a variety of extravagant entertainments” in that performance space. A week before the first performance date, the venue was destroyed by fire. The impresario sued for return of its money on the grounds that the hall owner failed to deliver on its promise to provide the space. The contract did not allocate the risk of such a fire as between the hall owner and the impresario. [It did end with, “G-d’s will permitting.” [Read more…]

Print

What Can Humpty Dumpty Recover If His Wall Wasn’t Finished On Time?

Print

Today, we return to the topic of “damages.” Our context will be “waiving” them. That way, we won’t feel as if we are duplicating postings of long ago such as the ones you can review by clicking: HERE or HERE or HERE.

The core “damages” one can expect to collect are designed to give the injured party “the benefit of its bargain.” That’s not the same as being made “whole.” Those core damages, ones that probably should never be “waived” are designed to give a party the money necessary to get what it “bought” in the first place. So, if the buyer was promised a car with a spare tire and the trunk turned out to be empty, the measure of its damages would be the cost of a spare tire. If a tenant was supposed to get trash removal “included” and the full container is surrounded by overflowing trash bags, the tenant is entitled to enough money to get the trash hauled away. If a builder contracted to put up a building and didn’t finish it, the customer would be entitled to the quantum of money that would pay to finish the building.

But, what about the cost of going out to buy that tire? What about the lost business from customers who ran from the store because of the “stink”? What about the cost to rent alternate space because the building was not completed by the contracted-for time? [Read more…]

Print

Whose Deal Is It Anyway?

Print

Two stubborn mature men arguing with each other isolated on white background

Rules are made to be broken even if no one knows there was even a rule. In this case, it is Ruminations violating its own rule against two consecutive screech-blog postings. Over the last 300+ postings, we’ve “salted” Ruminations with observations about our own bad habits and those we’ve seen in our generally great real estate community. We’ve tried to space them about a month apart. Last week, we wrote about an all too common way that a minority, but a disturbing minority, of our colleagues try to put the “other” negotiator down. This week we address another one of our “bugs.” That’s a rule-breaker.

To make matters worse for us, we are breaking another one of our rules – the one that has kept us from singling out one subset of our community – this week, the lawyer subset (of which this writer is a very proud member). Our distress isn’t limited to this subset. Certainly we of that persuasion hold no monopoly on the tendency to be complained-about today. Yet, we in that profession certainly suffer more frequently from this affliction than do members of any other subset of the real estate community.

Alright already, what is it? It is thinking that we are the business people who are actually making the deal – forgetting that it is our client’s (or principal’s) deal. How do we do this? We do it by arguing pure business terms as if the money to be paid or received will be coming out of our own pockets. [Read more…]

Print

(Un)Successful Negotiating: How To Lose Friends And Turn Off Colleagues

Print

Negotiation and civility are not and should not be mutually exclusive. And, yet, even some of those who agree with that haven’t internalized that principle. Whenever our own thinking brings us back to this pet peeve, we think of a remarkable colleague, one no longer with us. Brilliant and direct, he held strongly developed views and expressed them in a blunt way. Yet, he was never acerbic. Put differently, he had a remarkable ability: to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Does anyone really think that telling someone on the other side of a deal: “No one has ever asked for that before, you are being ridiculous,” will bring about the desired result? To our thinking, there are two possibilities. One is that the “ridiculous” proponent of the unprecedented bargaining request plain simply didn’t understand what she or he was asking for. The other possibility, the far more likely one, is that the proponent’s experience is quite different. She or he has heard the request before and likely has made the request, sometimes or even many times, with a successful result. Whichever is the case, directly or impliedly insulting your across-the-table (telephone, email) colleague isn’t likely to be a convincing argument. Basically, it is an ad hominem attack and reveals more about the speaker than the target. [Read more…]

Print