Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Upon careful review, many commercial leases have what can be called a “repair and maintenance gap.” This gap is created when the lease specifies certain repairs and maintenance for which each of the tenant and the landlord are responsible, but then is silent on others. If the repair and maintenance provisions are not considered, negotiated, and drafted thoughtfully, a gap can remain, creating the opportunity for the parties to be at odds over who has responsibility for a particular item of repair or maintenance, including whether replacements are included in those obligations.
Sometimes 'All Repairs' Does Not Really Mean 'All'
For example, while it is not uncommon in a long-term lease relationship for the parties to agree that the tenant will be responsible for most repairs to the premises, including structural repairs, absent express language in the lease to that effect, a landlord may be surprised to learn that it has retained such responsibility. This result was illustrated in a recent Missouri case, Whyzmuzis v. Plaza Shoe Store, Inc., Case. No. SD31766 (Mo. App. S.D. Sept. 17, 2012). In Whyzmuzis, the tenant had leased space in a shopping center for over 40 years pursuant to a series of smaller leases rather than one long-term lease, with the most recent lease being entered into in 2004 for a five-year term. The 2004 lease contained the following provision regarding maintenance and repair:
[Tenant] shall, at [its] own expense and at all times, maintain the premises in good and safe condition, including plate glass, electrical wiring, plumbing and heating installations and any other system or equipment upon the premises and shall surrender the same, at termination hereof, in as good condition as received, normal wear and tear excepted. [Tenant] shall be responsible for all repairs required, including the roof, exterior walls, structural foundations and all other items. This is a triple net lease: [Tenant] is responsible for all repairs and maintenance.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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?
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.