A recent case weighed the extent to which a purchaser was able to negotiate terms when exercising a purchase of property under an option in a lease.
The litigation began when, after the tenant/buyer exercised its purchase option, the landlord/seller refused to honor it. The case went to trial and the buyer won, with the trial court ordering the buyer to draft and deliver a purchase agreement to the seller within 45 days. The court also ruled that if the buyer did not act on time, the seller did not have to proceed.
According to the appellate court’s opinion, negotiations over the purchase agreement “became prolonged and contentious.” The seller gave handwritten comments to the contract and, as a result, the buyer revised the contract. The parties wound up back in court when the seller moved for a default, claiming that the buyer did not comply with the timeline set out by the court. The trial court ordered the parties to close on the buyer’s revised contract.
Apparently, the buyer intended to get financing from the seller, as the seller sent a proposed note and mortgage to the buyer in the period leading up to the closing. In response, the buyer asked the trial court to extend the closing so that the buyer could have more time to review the new documents. The seller opposed the request, but the trial court granted it, extending the closing deadline. The parties negotiated the note and mortgage for another 4 months, but never agreed on the forms. The seller again moved for default and each party blamed the other for the delays. This time, the trial court ruled for the seller on the grounds that the buyer had proposed terms that were “unreasonable and not customary in commercial transactions.”
The buyer, however, won on appeal. The appellate court found that the central issue in the case was the terms of the purchase agreement and related documents, including the note and mortgage. All the buyer did, the appellate court ruled, was propose additional terms to those documents, which did not injure the seller, other than to drag out the litigation and closing. In legal terms, the appellate court found that there was no ruling by the trial court that the buyer “materially breached” the agreement.
It’s important to note that whether a breach of a contract is “material” will depend on the facts of each case.
- Partner
Matt Chait is the Managing Partner of the West Palm Beach office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Business Litigation Practice Group. His statewide practice focuses on commercial real estate and land use litigation ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- SEC Adopts New Cybersecurity Rules
- From 😊 to 💼: Can Emojis Create a Legally Binding Contract?
- HB-3: An Overview of ESG Factors Relating to Public Funds Investment and Financial Industry Impacts
- The Live Local Act Part 2 - Affordable Housing Incentives
- Florida's Live Local Act
- Florida Preliminary Injunctions Must Merely Preserve the Status Quo
- Can a Landlord Obtain Funds Deposited by Tenant in the Court’s Registry?
- Drawn-out negotiations over purchase agreement result in extensive litigation
- In eviction case, trial court wrongly made landlord produce leases with other tenants
Popular Categories
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Landlord-Tenant
- Business
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Supreme Court
- Real Estate Law
- Cyber fraud
- Technology
- Business of Real Estate
- Property Tax
- Development/Land Use
- Cybersecurity
- Data Security
- Conveyances
- Foreclosures
- Estate planning
- Trusts and Estates
- Lease
- Wealth planning
- Business
- Insurance
- Restrictive Covenants
- Title
- Construction
- Promissory Notes
- Regulatory Compliance
- Government
- Creditor's Rights
- Liens and encumbrances
- Compliance
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Eviction
- Bankruptcy
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Attorneys' Fees
- Appeals
- Attorneys' Fees
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Small Business
- Mortgages
- Loan guaranties
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Maritime
- GAO
- Commercial Brokerage
- Renewal
- email hacking
- Lis Pendens
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- July 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- March 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- February 2019
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016