Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Spotlight: Don't Leave 'Air Quality' Out of the Lease
Air quality standards are frequently not satisfactorily addressed in leases, if they are addressed at all. Most sophisticated office leases will require a landlord to provide certain temperature and humidity levels during specified times. A typical clause provides that the landlord will provide HVAC service from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and perhaps from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Sometimes the actual dry and wet bulb temperature and humidity levels will be specified, and in other instances the lease will simply provide that temperature and humidity levels will be in accordance with first-class standards. These provisions, however, do not address air quality, including cooking odors or exhaust fumes which may infiltrate the building's air system and end up in a tenant's space.
A lease may have boilerplate provisions requiring the landlord to comply with applicable laws, but such provisions do not necessarily require the landlord to provide its tenant with odor-free space. The savvy tenant will require the landlord to provide, at a minimum, that the air quality in the tenant's space will be in accordance with standards for first-class office buildings and further require the landlord to take corrective actions at its expense in the event that the air quality does not match such standards. It is particularly important for lower-floor tenants of urban properties to insert provisions with respect to fumes, especially cooking odors. In order to ensure that the landlord does not correct air quality problems at the tenant's expense, the expense pass-through provisions of the lease should specifically exclude capital expenditures. This exclusion will provide the landlord with an incentive to hold other tenants or the owners of adjoining properties accountable if their activities are the cause of the aggrieved tenant's air quality problems.
William Crowe
Air quality standards are frequently not satisfactorily addressed in leases, if they are addressed at all. Most sophisticated office leases will require a landlord to provide certain temperature and humidity levels during specified times. A typical clause provides that the landlord will provide HVAC service from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and perhaps from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Sometimes the actual dry and wet bulb temperature and humidity levels will be specified, and in other instances the lease will simply provide that temperature and humidity levels will be in accordance with first-class standards. These provisions, however, do not address air quality, including cooking odors or exhaust fumes which may infiltrate the building's air system and end up in a tenant's space.
A lease may have boilerplate provisions requiring the landlord to comply with applicable laws, but such provisions do not necessarily require the landlord to provide its tenant with odor-free space. The savvy tenant will require the landlord to provide, at a minimum, that the air quality in the tenant's space will be in accordance with standards for first-class office buildings and further require the landlord to take corrective actions at its expense in the event that the air quality does not match such standards. It is particularly important for lower-floor tenants of urban properties to insert provisions with respect to fumes, especially cooking odors. In order to ensure that the landlord does not correct air quality problems at the tenant's expense, the expense pass-through provisions of the lease should specifically exclude capital expenditures. This exclusion will provide the landlord with an incentive to hold other tenants or the owners of adjoining properties accountable if their activities are the cause of the aggrieved tenant's air quality problems.
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
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.