Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Pitfalls for Landlords to Avoid in Leases Involving New Construction
New construction always involves myriad unknowns ' cost and timing are two of the biggest. However, if you add the complication of negotiating a lease at the same time, the problems quickly multiply. This article addresses some of these issues and provides advice for the landlord's use to avoid ending up in a situation where the lease becomes unprofitable.
The most obvious issue the parties face when negotiating a pre-construction lease is deciding on the date that the landlord is obligated to deliver possession of the completed premises to the tenant. It is important for the landlord to negotiate something less than absolute completion. The delivery date should therefore be determined when the landlord substantially completes its work in accordance with required plans. Substantial completion means completion sufficient to allow a tenant to take possession and operate the space, but may require the completion of minor punch list items. Similarly, if the landlord is required to deliver a certificate from an architect or contractor, the certificate should be one of substantial completion. This allows the clock to start ticking for determining when the rent begins and when the tenant is required to open for business. The landlord can complete any punch list items after the delivery.
Often, the lease will require the landlord to obtain a certificate of occupancy to trigger the commencement date. It is important to verify that the municipality will actually issue such a certificate and will do so in a timely manner. Some jurisdictions take as long as 6 months to do so. If the tenant is performing substantial tenant improvements, it is likely that a final certificate of occupancy will not be issued until after the completion of this work, and at best, the landlord should only be required to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.