Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Spotlight: Tenants Should Keep Watch for Innocuous-Appearing Provisions
Most leases provide for a rent abatement in the event of a casualty to either the building or leased premises that renders the leased premises unfit for the tenant's use until the casualty damage has been repaired. At first glance, the only items to be negotiated in such provisions are those that clarify what portion of the building or premises ' as the case may be ' must be affected in order to provide for an abatement, how quickly the landlord is obligated to restore the damage, and under what circumstances the parties may terminate the lease. There really should be no discussion as to whether or not the tenant is entitled to an equitable rent abatement, but some lease provisions limit the abatement to those instances in which the tenant is not responsible for the casualty. The way this onerous provision is usually drafted, it appears to be innocuous boilerplate. It is an unfair shifting of the risk of casualty from the landlord to the tenant, particularly in situations where (as in most net leases) the tenant reimburses the landlord for its proportionate share of the landlord's casualty insurance premiums (and sometimes even deductibles). Most landlords will readily delete the provision when challenged, but the tenant's counsel must be alert to request such a deletion.
A related provision that also should be stricken by savvy tenants is the similarly innocuous-appearing provision requiring the tenant to return the leased premises to the landlord at the end of the term “in the same condition as existed at the beginning of the lease term, reasonable wear and tear and casualty damage not caused by the acts or omissions of the tenant excepted.” This provision also unfairly shifts the casualty risk to the tenant and should not be acceptable to a tenant.
William Crowe
Most leases provide for a rent abatement in the event of a casualty to either the building or leased premises that renders the leased premises unfit for the tenant's use until the casualty damage has been repaired. At first glance, the only items to be negotiated in such provisions are those that clarify what portion of the building or premises ' as the case may be ' must be affected in order to provide for an abatement, how quickly the landlord is obligated to restore the damage, and under what circumstances the parties may terminate the lease. There really should be no discussion as to whether or not the tenant is entitled to an equitable rent abatement, but some lease provisions limit the abatement to those instances in which the tenant is not responsible for the casualty. The way this onerous provision is usually drafted, it appears to be innocuous boilerplate. It is an unfair shifting of the risk of casualty from the landlord to the tenant, particularly in situations where (as in most net leases) the tenant reimburses the landlord for its proportionate share of the landlord's casualty insurance premiums (and sometimes even deductibles). Most landlords will readily delete the provision when challenged, but the tenant's counsel must be alert to request such a deletion.
A related provision that also should be stricken by savvy tenants is the similarly innocuous-appearing provision requiring the tenant to return the leased premises to the landlord at the end of the term “in the same condition as existed at the beginning of the lease term, reasonable wear and tear and casualty damage not caused by the acts or omissions of the tenant excepted.” This provision also unfairly shifts the casualty risk to the tenant and should not be acceptable to a tenant.
William Crowe
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
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.
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.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.