Landlords always want to “approve” a tenant’s construction plans, but why? It can’t be that they are more expert than the governmental department that checks “to code.” Construction has to meet the code’s requirements even if a landlord has approved the plans.
Is it a matter of taste? Does the landlord think the ladies room should be where the men’s room is located and vice versa? How about whether the tenant wants to use a smooth ceiling tile and all of the other stores have a popcorn tile (not counting the 42% that don’t)?
Certainly, it is legitimate to “vet” any items that threaten the “structural integrity” of the building or change common utilities or services. But, doesn’t the lease say that anyway? If is doesn’t, it should. [Read more…]
Print
Interestingly, and probably not known by many, there are two very different possible legal obligations of a landlord to deliver the leased premises to its tenant. Some jurisdictions require delivery free of occupants and free of other persons entitled to possession of the same leased premises. Other jurisdictions only require that the landlord deliver the “right of possession” to a tenant, leaving it up to the tenant to get rid of any trespassers.
There are a number of issues commonly addressed in leases that are negotiated “somewhat in ignorance,” and often “with arrogance.” Strong words, we know, but we think a substantial number of readers will agree. Three such issue-areas are insurance, eminent domain, and property taxes.
Last week, we alluded to a lease transfer situation that had recently come across our desk, and then Ruminations detoured to its usual ranting to start a discussion about why a landlord should have any right to interfere with its tenant assigning the lease or subletting the leased space. Thanks for the comments we got directly to Ruminations by way of comments, by way of comments posted to LinkedIn, and privately.
A situation came across our desk this week and we thought we’d work it into a piece about circumventing assignment and subletting restrictions. As we started to scribble some notes, we were forced to rethink some of the whys and wherefores of these restrictions in the first place. And, that’s the plan today, leaving “circumvention” for later, probably next week.
We have been intrigued with the process or, more accurately, the breakdown in the process, by which leases and other agreements are negotiated. Based on our review of the postings that receive the greatest number of comments, it appears that this “whole mess” bothers our readers as well.
In our last two postings, we Ruminated about some of the issues involved in negotiating a lease’s damage and destruction provisions. If you missed those postings, start 
Leases frequently provide that either party can terminate them if damage is caused by a casualty in the last two years of the lease term. This could serve as an incentive for such a “casualty” to take place, and hence the question we ask. Yes, a cheap trick.
Recent Comments