Viewing 15 topics - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)

Hello, we are a small business. We own a small building in a central city. It is currently let by a very globally well known tenant, that owns an equally well know NZ company.  The lease we have contains the No Access clause 27.5.  I would appreciate any views around how much risk should be considered when determining a fair proportion of rent to pay. There is alot of focus on tenant ‘use’ but surely the word “fair” in the clause should bring into consideration risk and which party is better placed to bear it . This particular tenant negotiated hard as soon as lock down was announced.  This premises forms a very small part of their business, Ithey are an essential business and are able to continue this from several other locations around the country.  Other small business in the same trade are currently making use of their premises to continue in very small capacity.  This tenant has decided to shut up shop and cut costs.  According to its official ‘use’ 1/3 of its floor space is unable to carry out its normal use due to covid 19.   Our business only has this income as its sole income. The tenant has multiple streams of income.  The more I read about this clause , the more I realise it is not cut and dry.  It would be interesting to get a view from one of the specialist commercial lawyers on board about placing more weight on each side’s ability to bear risk.  May is looming and this tenant will be requesting further discount.  I did seek initial legal advice on ths clause but in the end, it did nopt really add much assistance as this clause has not been deliberated in court. 

Question submitted by @anonymous 21/04/2020 @ 4:18 pm
Viewing 15 topics - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)
  • You must be logged in to create new topics.