To A Hammer Everything Looks Like A Nail

Print

Knowing what you don’t know is a good thing. A practical application of that statement comes when you are trying to figure out how a particular jurisdiction will treat a particular agreement such as a lease. There are some legal principles that suffuse state law throughout the United States. The law of damages is NOT one of those principles. Yes, the generality of “damages” is pretty much the same all over, but the details are not. Here’s an example from a just-decided Colorado case from its Supreme Court.

The question that court considered was whether a seller could really make the choice of remedies provided-for in the following contract clause: [Read more…]

Print

Can You Back Out Of A Deal If The Agreement Is Still Unsigned?

Print

Anyone who hasn’t asked this question or been asked this question just hasn’t been around long enough – “Now that the final agreement has been prepared, are we obligated to sign it and go forward?” There’s no need to scroll down to the bottom for an answer. We’ll put it right here, up front – “It depends.” “It depends” doesn’t mean: “No.”

There’s a companion question that gets asked – “What if we, up front, say that we can back out at any time before signing, for any reason or no reason at all”? There’s no need to scroll down to the bottom for an answer. We’ll put it right here, up front – “It depends.” “It depends” doesn’t mean: “No.”

Today’s blog posting is mostly the following story, one that illuminates the questions we’ve begun with.

As part of an on-line, sealed bid auction sale of non-performing loans, prospective bidders were presented with a required form of asset purchase agreement.  The successful bidder would be required to sign that agreement. Interested buyers were invited to present “indicative” bids. Based on those indicative bids, the seller would select acceptable candidate-buyers and those parties could perform pre-bid due diligence for the offered loans. [Read more…]

Print

Exclusive Use Clauses And Antitrust Concerns

Print

It’s been a thousand or more leases since Ruminations did any serious thinking about the intersection of exclusive use restrictions, radius clauses, and their respective lawfulness. This isn’t a current topic of discussion in leasing circles, though it certainly was 40 to 50 years ago. Yes, there is comfort in knowing that, with the passage of time, we aren’t seeing the “anti-trust” or “unfair methods of competition” armies marching into the shopping center arena. That is, possibly, until now.

Readers can research the law on their own. It isn’t worth wasting electrons on hyper-technical legal background. Suffice it to write that there is a Federal Trade Commission Act barring “unfair methods of competition in commerce … .” The lessening of competition is a danger also addressed in the Robinson-Patman Act, the Sherman Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act. Further, some states have their own anti-competition or antitrust laws. [Read more…]

Print

Isn’t It Simple To Send A Notice? Apparently Not

Print

In the six years of our Ruminating in this forum, we’ve written a lot about notices, renewal options, and waivers. We just came across an otherwise insignificant case (other than to the parties themselves) illustrating some of the points we’ve tried to make over the course of this blog’s life.

Our story involves an unremarkable retail lease and a single, also unremarkable, lease amendment extending the original lease term for 20 years and granting the tenant a 5- year extension option thereafter. To exercise the extension option, the tenant was required to give 180 days’ prior irrevocable, written notice. The lease amendment did not specify what the notice had to say and did not give any “rules” for how a written notice needed to be given. Beyond those two substantive items, the lease amendment said that all other terms and conditions of the lease remained as originally set forth in the lease. [Read more…]

Print

Circumventing Lease Transfer (Assignment – Subletting) Restrictions And Other Ploys (Part 3)

Print

Today’s blog posting may not make sense to those who haven’t read our previous two postings. In the first part of this three part series, we presented some basic assignment and subletting concepts, legal and practical. That can be seen by clicking: HERE. Last week we continued that presentation, but moved into what we titled: “The Troubles I Have Seen – General Assignment / Subletting Issues.” That posting ended with a list of shortcomings  commonly plaguing many assignment/subletting lease provisions. It can be seen by clicking: HERE.

Today, we continue by listing more practical issues faced by all of us when trying to restrict lease transfers (what most landlords seek to do) or when trying to facilitate lease transfers (what most tenants seek to achieve). Even if you’ve chosen not to look at the prior postings, we guaranty that today’s posting will make you want to do so. So, to that end, we begin with: [Read more…]

Print

How Can We Get Out Of Here In One Piece? (Part 1)

Print

Vacation time and the living is easy. Ruminations has a big backlist of material and sometimes we cheat by reaching into it and putting an edited, usually lightly edited, version of “stuff from the vault” in the form of a blog posting. That’s what’s happening this week and at least next week. Just like a resale store, “it’s new to you.” [That is, new to at least nearly all, but not all, of our readers.] Today, tour approach adds up to the first part of a primer, from the Ruminations perspective, on assignment and subletting.

Under common law, absent a lease restriction, tenants were free to assign their leasehold interest to others or to sublet all or part of their leased space. That rule of law is of little consequence today because virtually all leases restrict assignment and subletting rights, often in excruciating detail. In addition, a small number of jurisdictions have reversed the rule by statute and there are certain kinds of leases, generally tied into personal services that are not, as a default matter, freely assignable. [Read more…]

Print

Five Or More Take-Aways From A Single Mailbox (Rule)

Print

There must be a backstory to the case Ruminations will look at today. But, first, we’ll ramble a little, touching on this ‘n that.

There’s a common law rule called the “mailbox rule” or if you are on the eastern side of the Atlantic in another English-speaking county, the “posting rule.” [The United States and Great Britain – two nations separated by a common language. Credit: George Bernard Shaw.] The rule says that, absent some other bar, an offer is accepted when it is presented to the postal service, put in the hands of a postal worker or placed in a mail box). Basically, absent saying otherwise, an offeror is deemed to have “appointed” the postal service as its agent for receipt of an acceptance. The risk of receipt is thus placed on the offeror. This rule applies in other situations, one of which is relevant to today’s story.

This is a good place to remind all readers to carefully review the Ruminations disclaimer at the bottom of the blog page. Today, our disclaimer clearly means that no reader should try to learn the law from our description of the “mailbox rule.” Our description is just a starting point for understanding its extent and, more importantly, its limitations. That having been said, don’t ignore that the rule exists. [Read more…]

Print

Subject To What Exactly?

Print

Today’s blog posting deals with the always “fresh” question about whether making something “subject to winding up with a signed, written agreement” allows the parties to walk away without having to look back. The answer we give today, however, may not be very satisfying to many readers. And, to those who find the answer of interest, rarely will they be able to apply today’s answer to any problems that reach their way.

Have you ever wondered what is really meant when we write that a letter of intent or other form of agreement is “subject to” one or more conditions? Basically, what is the meaning or scope of those two words: “subject to”? If there is any lesson to come out today, it might be that we should be much clearer than “subject to” before the parties are bound to an agreement or to perform an obligation under an agreement. [Read more…]

Print