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
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.