Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Using Letters of Intent in Real Estate Leasing Transactions
Everyone wants to do the deal, but no one is ready to sign the lease. Zoning approvals, construction plans, financing, and a host of other issues need to be firmed up before the lease will be signed, but it is a lot of time and expense to go through if there's no agreement on the essential terms of the relationship. Hence, the Letter of Intent (“LOI”). An LOI is intended to, and should, give assurances to the parties, fix the agreed-upon terms of the deal, provide information and assurances to third parties, and provide a framework for further negotiations and the definitive agreement. It can, however, also be a minefield of potential problems and an invitation to litigation. This article reviews some of those problems and suggests ways to accommodate the parties' needs while avoiding the most common dangers.
Is a Letter of Intent Necessary?
LOIs are appropriate for ascertaining issues of significance to one or both parties. If the parties cannot agree on the significant issues that are often included in an LOI, such as co-tenancy provisions, opening and operating covenants and exclusives, they are unlikely to spend the time and money to negotiate and prepare a final lease or investigate the feasibility of the transaction. Nevertheless, before entering into an LOI, one should think carefully about whether it is truly necessary. Too often, LOIs are viewed by the disappointed party as a binding agreement that the other party has breached, while the withdrawing party views the LOI as merely a prelude to negotiations. If circumstances are such that an LOI is required, the LOI should be reviewed by counsel to ensure that the language protects the parties' interests.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?