Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Negotiating Parking Privileges in Commercial Leases: What Every Tenant Should Know
Parking privileges are often essential to the businesses of commercial tenants. Given this proposition, it is surprising that many commercial tenants and their legal counsel often overlook important parking issues in favor of what may appear to be more pressing legal and economic issues in the lease negotiation process. This is unfortunate, as inadequate or ambiguous parking provisions can: 1) lead to costly legal battles, 2) harm a tenant's business, and 3) cause the deterioration of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Commercial tenants and their legal counsel should incorporate in the lease specific terms concerning the amount, location, maintenance, availability, cost and use of parking spaces to be provided as part of the leasing of the demised premises or common area. Some landlords outsource the operation of their parking facility to a third-party operator. In these situations, the detailed terms of the parking arrangements are often contained in a separate agreement between the tenant and the operator. While that is acceptable, the lease must still contain a provision obligating the landlord to make the parking available on the terms described in the parking agreement in the event the agreement with the third-party operator terminates. No matter whether the specific parking terms are contained in the body of the lease, the special stipulations of the lease, or a separate parking agreement, however, the savvy commercial tenant should be cognizant of the potential pitfalls inherent in poorly drafted parking provisions.
This article focuses on the importance of negotiating specific and detailed parking arrangements for office, retail and industrial leases and provides practice pointers for tenants and their counsel.
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.