In 1970, the Harvard Business Review published an article by Peter Pyhrr in which he promoted the idea of zero-based budgeting. Different descriptions of this approach have been offered. Most explain that one should begin each periodic budgeting process tabula rasa – with a blank slate, and then justify every expense anew, not just adjust the last period’s budget by adding or removing items. A simpler explanation is that one should “rigorously review every dollar” in each successive budget. We doubt many have truly adopted this approach. It’s just too much work. It’s easier to cut and paste last year’s budget. In fact, momentum causes a repeating of last year’s expense items. Perceived “new” needs often result in just adding more expenditures each year. Only when income shortfalls force a review, do items get dropped. [Read more…]
Where Were You When The Revolution Began? – Revisiting How We Work Our Deals
Kick-Out Clauses as Circuit Breakers – A Contrarian View
Here at Ruminations, we often short-cut any deep thinking about proposed agreements or about provisions within those agreements when we see something we call a “circuit-breaker.” For example, we don’t drill down into rent damage clauses when a lease’s term is one year. After all, it takes time for a tenant to fail, and how much time will really be left on the lease after that date? The same goes for an agreement that allows either party to terminate it on 30 or 60 days’ notice for any reason or no reason at all. Why cogitate when a party can “kick-out” of an unfavorable agreement or relationship? [Read more…]
How Long Do I Have To Wait?
There’s a song, Hesitation Blues, first recorded in 1916, that begins with this line: “How long do I have to wait?” It is also a question often asked when a lease or other agreement is silent as to a deadline or permissible period. And, almost always, that question is asked when something has gone wrong. That’s evidence it should be asked at the outset when people memorialize their agreement or expectations.
We just looked at an August 12 decision by a New York lower court. In it, the judge wrote what is generally the law: [Read more…]
Rights, Powers, And Forgiveness – Let’s Loosen Up
Today, we’re going to engage in some pure Ruminating. Most of the time, we (and others who are deeply engaged in this side of the “business”) focus on the “documents.” We think about how they are drafted and often mis-drafted. We read articles and (in “olden” times”) participate in programs focused on how better to do our “job.” But, there are some “rules” that get short shrift. These are rules that regularly have more force than do laws.
One is that there is a difference between having the “right” to do something that is required (or to abstain from doing something) and the “power” to do that thing (or not). Another comes in two versions: It’s easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission; and it’s easier to apologize than to get permission.
The success of either approach might be related to another aphorism: Might makes right. Each reveals two deficiencies found even in the best-crafted agreements. There aren’t enough trees in the world (proverbially speaking) to create enough paper to contain all of the words needed to regulate every possible permutation of conducts or situations. And, much of what we write (and agree-upon) just plain isn’t important; the provisions aren’t really needed. [Read more…]
Apocalypse Now For Shopping Malls?
We had a posting teed up for this week, ready to click the “publish button” today. Then we read an on-line article last night, one about the most visible retail real estate we have – shopping malls. So, for the first time in nearly 500 Ruminations blog postings, we are scrapping (actually delaying) our planned posting, one focused on the danger of just plopping in new text at the last minute without reading all of the “notwithstanding” provisions already in that document. Basically, we interrupt your regularly scheduled blog posting to bring you this important message, one written today.
The article appears in today’s New York Times under the headline: “With Department Stores Disappearing, Malls Could Be Next.” In another first for Ruminations, click HERE for a link to the article. We’ve never before linked to another publication. Though this is a newspaper article written from the transitory point of view of one author, she spoke with the largest operators in the United States. We don’t want to substitute our summary for the actual article. Two of the printed quotations should be enough to give our readers the “flavor.” [Read more…]
More Thoughts About Force Majeure Provisions
Last week, we wrote about a court decision interpreting a lease’s poorly written force majeure clause. If you missed it, click: HERE to see it. Following that blog’s posting, we engaged in some “off-line” discussions with old friends about the scope of force majeure provisions. Basically, our back-and-forths concerned their scope: “Should they be broad or narrow?” Today’s posting is an outgrowth of those discussions.
Our position last week was that these provisions are “catch-alls,” i.e., they usually cover situations beyond the control of the parties. These clauses usually begin with: “If A, B, C, …, Z,” examples being labor strikes, meteorite crashes, etc. Then the clauses end with: “or other events beyond the reasonable control of a party.” The keyword is “other.” That tells us that A, B, C, and so forth are examples of things beyond the reasonable control of a party. They (A, B, C, etc.) don’t have to be listed. That is if people would agree that they are such. [Read more…]
Is A Poorly Written Force Majeure Clause Worth The Ink?
We’ve all seen, or perhaps been assaulted by, a surfeit of articles about force majeure clauses and how all of our agreements should include one. Other pundits have gotten way ahead of this one by explaining how we will have a better world if the advice to include such clauses would be taken by all. They’ve noted that very few agreements with a force majeure provision have covered the kind of closures we have experienced and are still experiencing. But, what we’ve not seen is much understanding that there is nothing special about a “force majeure” clause: it is no more than another risk-shifting device. What differentiates these provisions from co-tenancy or fire damage provisions is that force majeure clauses don’t know in advance how a particular risk will manifest itself. Even though some speak of “labor disputes,” “acts of G-d,” “public enemies,” etc., they invariably end with: “or other events beyond the control of a party” or some such. Without getting into the rules of contract interpretation, we’ll simply note that this teaches that these clauses are intended to relieve one party or the other of an obligation if something beyond the control of the obligated party prevents performance. [Read more…]
“And, If Not” – The Question Left Unasked: Crafting A Lease Requires Thoughtfulness
The court opinion we wrote about last week continues to bother us. It wasn’t only about the court decision’s primary question of whether an “election,” once made, can be revoked. There is a second aspect that bothers us, one that we will get to about 300 words from now. First, we’ll summarize what bothered us about how the lease didn’t “do the right thing,” “didn’t keep the question out of a court.” And, if the parties went to court, the lease didn’t give the court a rule or even guidance.
As to whether a notice, once given, can be revoked, we know that the parties crafting an agreement should cover that in their agreement. We also know that if the non-electing party reasonably incurs damages when relying on such an election notice, it should be made whole. If they don’t, then what should the rule be? Last week, we saw a court look at a lease that was silent on the question as to whether a landlord that sent a 12-month notice requiring a tenant to temporarily vacate its premises could change its mind two months before the required move-out date. It ruled that the election made by the landlord requiring such a move-out could not be rescinded. What the court failed to do was to adequately explain why it ruled that way. [Read more…]
Follow Us!