Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Rent Abatement As Liquidated Damages Or Unenforceable Penalty?

BY Gary A. Goodman, Michael S. Wien
August 18, 2003

Sophisticated parties engaging in complex real estate transactions customarily provide for rent abatement provisions in commercial office leases in order to liquidate damages where delays in landlord's construction would lead to a breach of the contract. That is what occurred in Bates Advertising USA, Inc. v. 498 Seventh, LLC, 291 A.D. 2d 179 (1st Dept. 2002). In a decision that threatened to have a profound impact on commercial office leases in New York City, the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, a trial level court, held a typical rent abatement clause unenforceable by ruling that it was not a liquidated damages provision, but instead, an unenforceable penalty. The tenant appealed, and in a decision that saved the contractual expectations embodied in many similar commercial leases, the Appellate Division's First Department reversed, finding that nothing in the rent abatement provision created an unenforceable penalty or forfeiture, or violated the purpose of the liquidated damages rule.

Liquidated damages constitute the compensation that the parties have previously agreed should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract. Provisions for liquidated damages have value in those situations where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to calculate the amount of actual damage. Thus, in effect, a liquidated damages provision is an estimate, made by the parties at the time of contracting, of the injury that would be sustained as a result of a breach of the agreement. Liquidated damages provisions are struck down as unenforceable penalties when they are against public policy or 'the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss.' Truck Rent-A-Center v. Puritan Farms 2nd, Inc., 41 N.Y. 2d 420, 425 (1977).

In Bates, an advertising company entered into a lease with the owner of a building who, by the terms of the lease, agreed to make substantial improvements and renovations to the building. As with many commercial leases that require improvements, some of the improvements were to be made before the tenant commenced occupancy, while other improvements were to be made after occupancy. It would be extremely difficult for the tenant to prove the value of its damages arising from a breach of the contract due to the owner's failure to make certain improvements. The lease, therefore included a rent abatement provision to liquidate damages. The parties made a significant effort to ensure that in the event of default the compensation provided for in the liquidated damages provision was proportionate to the contemplated loss. They did this by breaking down the contemplated improvements into two categories: a) nine work items for which the plaintiff would be entitled to a half-day rent abatement for each day any of them remained uncompleted; and b) two work items that were so material that the plaintiff would be entitled to a full-day rent abatement for each day either of them remained incomplete. Despite this effort, the trial court held the compensation disproportionate, and thus struck down the liquidated damages provision as a penalty, due to the fact that the half-day abatement applied whether one item or all nine items remained unsatisfied.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Yachts, Jets, Horses & Hooch: Specialized Commercial Leasing Models Image

Defining commercial real estate asset class is essentially a property explaining how it identifies — not necessarily what its original intention was or what others think it ought to be. This article discusses, from a general issue-spot and contextual analysis perspective, how lawyers ought to think about specialized leasing formats and the regulatory backdrops that may inform what the documentation needs to contain for compliance purposes.

Hyperlinked Documents: The Latest e-Discovery Challenge Image

As courts and discovery experts debate whether hyperlinked content should be treated the same as traditional attachments, legal practitioners are grappling with the technical and legal complexities of collecting, analyzing and reviewing these documents in real-world cases.

Identifying Your Practice's Differentiator Image

How to Convey Your Merits In a Way That Earns Trust, Clients and Distinctions Just as no two individuals have the exact same face, no two lawyers practice in their respective fields or serve clients in the exact same way. Think of this as a "Unique Value Proposition." Internal consideration about what you uniquely bring to your clients, colleagues, firm and industry can provide untold benefits for your law practice.

Risks and Ad Fraud Protection In Digital Advertising Image

The ever-evolving digital marketing landscape, coupled with the industry-wide adoption of programmatic advertising, poses a significant threat to the effectiveness and integrity of digital advertising campaigns. This article explores various risks to digital advertising from pixel stuffing and ad stacking to domain spoofing and bots. It will also explore what should be done to ensure ad fraud protection and improve effectiveness.

Turning Business Development Plans Into Reality Image

This article offers practical insights and best practices to navigate the path from roadmap to rainmaking, ensuring your business development efforts are not just sporadic bursts of activity, but an integrated part of your daily success.