lease assignment privity of contract

Privity of Estate | Practical Law

Privity of Estate

Practical law glossary item 7-503-8122  (approx. 3 pages).

• The original tenant no longer has privity of estate with the landlord and it cannot occupy the premises any more.
• the landlord expressly releases the original tenant; or
• there are state or local laws that establish the tenant's privity of contract terminated when the tenant's privity of estate terminated.
• The assignee and the landlord will have privity of estate and privity of contract as of the effective date of the assignment and assumption of the lease.
• The original tenant retains its privity of estate and privity of contract with the landlord.
• The subtenant does not have privity of estate or privity of contract with the landlord.
• The subtenant has privity of estate and privity of contract with the original tenant.

• assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

Commercial Lease Assignment and Sublet Provisions

A balancing act for landlords and tenants, july 2020 by adam f. aldrich.

This article identifies common problems involved in commercial lease transfers through assignments and subleases. It offers both landlords and tenants tips for solving these problems when negotiating assignment and sublease provisions in leases.

The modern commercial lease is a complex, integrated document that attempts to balance the competing interests of the landlord and tenant. As a result, commercial leases are the subject of much negotiation and are never “one size fits all.” In fact, commercial leases are one of the least standardized documents in real estate practice.

When any commercial lease is to be transferred in part through a sublet or in its entirety through an assignment, the issues multiply. The transfer provisions, which once seemed moot, become operative to determine whether the lease can be transferred and, if so, under what conditions. If, during lease negotiations, the parties overlooked the lease transfer provisions or gave them cursory consideration, they may be unpleasantly surprised by the result. While landlords and tenants have divergent economic interests with respect to transferring the lease, their legitimate concerns can be appropriately addressed through thoughtfully crafted transfer provisions.

This article explores common problems, issues, and solutions encountered in commercial lease transfers through assignments and subleases. It is intended to be useful both to the lawyer who infrequently encounters lease transfer problems and the seasoned practitioner who deals with lease transfer issues every day.

Distinguishing Between an Assignment and Sublease

Assignments and subleases have fundamental differences that are frequently misunderstood. A lease is both a conveyance of an interest in property and a contract. 1 After executing the lease, the landlord and tenant are bound to one another by privity of contract and by privity of estate. As a result, they may each enforce the provisions of the written lease through privity of contract and the promises that arise from privity of estate. 2 Privity of contract allows enforcement of the lease provisions, while privity of estate allows enforcement of only those promises that run with the land. 3

Whether the landlord, tenant/assignor, and subtenant/assignee call their arrangement an assignment or a sublease, courts typically look at the substance of the transaction. In an assignment, a tenant transfers its entire interest in the lease. 4 After assigning its interest in the lease, the assignee has privity of estate with the landlord, but the assignee and the landlord are not in privity of contract unless the assignee assumes the tenant’s obligations under the lease. 5 Assignment of the lease ends the original tenant’s rights to possession, but absent an express release under the lease terms, its liability under the lease continues. 6 This means the original tenant remains secondarily liable for the assignee’s obligations under the lease. Thus, the tenant/assignor may find itself liable at a future date if the assignee fails to perform its obligations under the lease.

In a sublease, however, the tenant transfers less than the remaining term or less than the tenant’s entire interest in the lease, leaving the original tenant with a reversionary interest in the lease. 7 The relationship between the original landlord and the original tenant, including both privity of contract and privity of estate, remains intact, thereby creating the relationship of landlord and tenant between the original tenant (sublandlord) and the new tenant (subtenant). The original landlord and the subtenant have no privity of estate or privity of contract with one another, so the original tenant remains liable for the actions and omissions of the subtenant. 8 However, the subtenant’s rights will terminate with the original lease or when the landlord declares a forfeiture of the tenant’s lease term. 9

A third, less common type of transfer is a partial assignment of a lease. Such assignments are called assignments “pro tanto,” not subleases, because they grant possession of a portion of the leased premises to the new tenant for the balance of the lease term. 10 The landlord now has two tenants and, in effect, two leases. There is little guiding case law on this hybrid lease transfer, so it is not entirely clear whether the assignee has a contractual relationship with the landlord. 11 Due to the vagaries and uncertainties that can result when a transfer of possession encompasses less than all of the space, partial assignments should be avoided. To avoid assignments pro tanto, landlords should consider prohibiting assignments of less than the original tenant’s entire interest in the lease. If a landlord proceeds with a partial assignment, it should clearly document the arrangement, including the rights and remedies of the landlord, original tenant, and new tenant, and acknowledge the transaction as a partial assignment and not a sublease. 12

The accompanying table illustrates the many differences between an assignment, sublease, and partial assignment. 13

Restrictions on Assignments and Subleases

Colorado law favors the free transferability of rights. 14 As a result, landlords frequently attempt to limit the tenant’s right to transfer the lease by including lease provisions specifically restricting the tenant’s right to assign or sublet. Under Colorado law, outright prohibitions against assignments are permissible and are not considered invalid restraints on alienation. 15 Even if outright prohibitions on assignments or subletting are enforced, such provisions “are construed against the restriction.” 16 This means a court generally will construe such stipulations “against the party invoking them.” 17 A breach of the restriction against transfer does not terminate the lease, 18 but may give rise to a claim for default. 19 Generally, tenants in commercial leases negotiate exceptions to strict prohibitions against assignments or subletting because transfer provisions may be their only viable exit strategy if they find they can no longer afford the space or no longer need it.

Consent to Assignments and Subleases

Recognizing that absolute prohibitions are neither favored by the courts nor acceptable to most tenants, some landlords include modified prohibitions in their leases that limit the tenant’s rights to transfer the lease and, if a transfer is permitted, allow the landlord to enforce the lease against both the original tenant and the new tenant to the maximum extent possible. Such provisions may reserve to the landlord, either in its sole discretion or without unreasonably withholding its consent, the right to approve a proposed lease transfer. Although the reservation of the landlord’s right to approve a proposed assignment or sublease is for the landlord’s benefit, 20 the landlord is bound to the standards set out in the lease for consents to an assignment or sublease. 21 Accordingly, once the landlord has established the standards for its consent in the lease, it cannot object to a proposed assignment or sublease if the tenant has met the appropriate requirements.

It is well established in Colorado law that “without a freely negotiated provision in the lease giving the landlord an absolute right to withhold consent, a landlord’s decision to withhold consent must be reasonable.” 22 Thus, if a lease contains a provision against subletting or assignment, but is silent on a landlord’s right to withhold consent, Colorado law forbids the landlord from withholding its consent unreasonably if the tenant tenders a suitable subtenant or assignee to the landlord. 23

Disputes often arise as to what is a ‘‘reasonable” withholding of the landlord’s consent. This debate has led to the enunciation of specific standards of reasonableness. If a lease provision “requires that consent to an assignment will not be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld, a landlord is held to the standard of conduct of a reasonably prudent person.” 24 Therefore, a landlord must only consider “those factors that relate to a landlord’s interest in preserving the value of the property,” 25 which do not include “[a]rbitrary considerations of personal taste, convenience, or sensibility . . . .” 26 Whether a landlord has acted reasonably is a fact-specific inquiry. 27 Most courts have held that the tenant bears the burden of proving that the landlord acted unreasonably in withholding consent, 28 but some courts have required the landlord to prove it acted reasonably. 29 Courts have been divided on a tenant’s right to terminate a lease where the landlord has been found to have unreasonably withheld consent. 30

There are several reliable rules that courts follow in determining whether a landlord acted reasonably. First, a landlord cannot refuse consent for racial or other discriminatory reasons. 31

Second, a landlord may not deny consent to improve its general economic position or to receive increased rent. 32 However, a landlord may deny consent to protect its interest in the value, condition, and operation of the property or the performance of lease covenants. 33 For example, in Cafeteria Operators L.P. v. AMCAP/Denver Limited Partnership , the tenant leased the premises to run a cafeteria-style restaurant. 34 After several failed attempts to operate the restaurant, the tenant marketed the space to prospective subtenants, including non-cafeteria restaurant owners. 35 When a non-cafeteria restaurant owner expressed interest in subleasing the premises, the tenant sought the landlord’s approval to the proposed sublease, but the landlord refused. The Court found that the landlord reasonably withheld consent because the proposed sublessee would have changed the “character” of the shopping center by operating “the largest restaurant of its kind, raising concerns about lighting, maintenance, traffic, and parking.” 36 Moreover, the subtenant would sell alcohol and stay open late, and its proposed occupancy raised “concerns about security, safety of patrons, and parking requirements.” 37 Similarly, the Court in List v. Dahnke found that the landlord reasonably withheld consent where the landlord determined that a Thai-American restaurant operated by the assignee would not be successful at that location, but the Court did not identify the facts that led the landlord to such conclusion. 38

Third, a court may make a finding of unreasonableness if a landlord refuses consent to a proposed transfer without obtaining relevant information to make its decision. 39 Before making the decision, the landlord should obtain sufficient information on the transferee’s financial condition; the transferee’s experience in operating its business; how the premises are to be used; projected sales, gross income, and income per square foot; and, in the case of a sublease, the size of the subleased space. 40

Fourth, courts may consider how long it takes the landlord to make the decision on the requested assignment. If the landlord instantly refuses consent or waits too long to make a decision, the court could make a finding of unreasonableness. 41 Conversely, if the tenant fails to allow the landlord a reasonable amount of time to issue a decision, the withholding of consent can be found reasonable. 42 In Parr v. Triple L&J Corp. , the Court found that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent when it deferred making a decision on the proposed assignment, thereby delaying the sale of the tenant’s business until the prospective buyer withdrew his offer. 43 The tenant sought approval from the landlord for an assignment of the lease as part of the sale of its business. The landlord requested all personal and financial information on the proposed assignee and the assignee’s business plan, and the tenant provided prompt responses that demonstrated the assignee’s experience in restaurant management and “perfect credit score.” 44 Because the landlord unreasonably withheld consent, the landlord was held liable to the tenant under a breach of contract theory, as well as for lost profits on the sale of its business. 45

Similarly, the Court in Bert Bidwell Investors Corp. v. LaSalle and Schiffer, P.C. addressed whether the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to the tenant’s request to transfer the lease where the assignee was “ready, willing, and able to assume the lease as written, and to use the premises for the same business as that of the tenants.” 46 The landlord ultimately refused consent because it “didn’t like” the proposed assignee. 47 Based on the lease, which required the landlord’s consent to assign, the landlord argued that it “had the right to relet the premises as it saw fit and to be arbitrary in doing so.” 48 Relying on List , the Court found that the landlord acted unreasonably in refusing to accept the proposed new tenant. 49 Nevertheless, parties may create their own standards and definition of reasonableness, and if they do, courts will enforce and apply such standards. 50

As these cases illustrate, if a landlord wishes to withhold consent absent a sole and unconditional contractual right to do so, it must have fact-based reasons for doing so and cannot arbitrarily withhold or delay its consent. The landlord should communicate its decision in writing to the tenant and enumerate all fact-based reasons to preserve all arguments for reasonableness. 51 Before making the request to assign or sublet the premises, the tenant should gather information about the proposed assignee’s or subtenant’s financial status, business acumen, and proposed operations, and then submit this information to the landlord, along with an assignment or sublease document signed by the tenant and assignee or subtenant. While the landlord must still consent to the transaction, 52 such documentation places the tenant in a stronger position to rebut any superficial or arbitrary reasons the landlord may proffer for denying consent. And if litigation ensues, it will be critical for the tenant’s case to show that it supplied the landlord with as much information as possible concerning the assignee’s or subtenant’s financial status and operations, to avoid having the trier of fact determine that the landlord acted reasonably in denying consent due to a lack of information from the tenant.

Recapture, Termination, and Renewal Rights

Leases may grant the landlord the right to terminate the lease and to retake the tenant’s space if the tenant wishes to assign its lease or sublet its space, or if the tenant transfers the lease without the landlord’s consent. Replacing the tenant by recapturing the premises can benefit both the landlord and the tenant, but each party will want to weigh the pros and cons of such an agreement.

Terminating the lease allows the landlord to eliminate existing lease weaknesses and to enter into a new lease with a potentially better tenant on a clean slate. Moreover, recapturing the premises and directly leasing it to the proposed assignee can save the landlord substantial dollars in tenant improvements that can be passed on to the new tenant through reduced or free rent for a portion of the lease term. But the landlord must pay close attention to market conditions before terminating the lease. Terminating the lease in a strong market when space is at a premium and rents are high allows the landlord to enter into a new lease with a new tenant at a higher rate, but the landlord may take a loss on its investment in the premises in a down market when rates are depressed and there is an oversupply of space.

The tenant, on the other hand, risks losing its investment in its business and the leased premises. Before requesting a transfer, the tenant should closely scrutinize the lease to determine the potential outcome. Under some leases, the act of notifying the landlord of an intent to assign or sublet can trigger the recapture provision. 53 Similarly, if the lease is assigned without the landlord’s consent, it may trigger the recapture right if that right is expressly provided in the lease. 54 Landlords should closely review the recapture language before terminating the lease because restraints on alienation and lease forfeitures are disfavored. 55

When a tenant violates the transfer provisions by transferring the lease without the landlord’s consent, the landlord should send a notice of default to the tenant and demand that the default be cured by nullifying the transfer, 56 unless the lease provides that transferring the lease is an automatic termination. If the tenant is unable to nullify the transfer when it receives the notice, it could be liable for default damages incurred by the landlord. 57 If the tenant does not cure the default and the landlord will not approve (and has the right not to approve) the assignee or subtenant, the landlord may terminate the lease (or the tenant’s right to possession) if the lease so permits. 58 If the landlord fails to terminate the lease 59 or accepts rent after breach of the anti-assignment clause, 60 it may be deemed to have waived the right to terminate. Once the lease is terminated as a result of the default, the landlord must consider its duty to mitigate damages. 61

If the space is recaptured and the lease terminated, the tenant’s lease obligations will be terminated with respect to all recaptured space, including the payment of rent. 62 Moreover, the tenant will no longer have privity of contract or estate with the landlord, assignee, or subtenant because the lease will be terminated as to the tenant. 63 If the landlord recaptures the premises, the tenant is spared the rent expense while it finds a transferee. But if the landlord does not recapture, the tenant can make a transfer without fear that the landlord will then exercise its recapture rights.

Another important issue is whether an option to renew contained in a lease assigned or subleased to a third party remains exercisable following the transfer. If the assigned lease gives the original tenant a renewal option, the assignee can extend the term unless the renewal option is reserved from the assignment. 64 If a tenant/sublandlord grants its subtenant an option to renew based on the tenant’s option in the prime lease, the subtenant is dependent on the tenant/sublandlord for a lease extension because it does not have contractual privity with the landlord. 65 If the tenant/sublandlord refuses to exercise its renewal option so as to enable the subtenant to take advantage of the rights that were granted to it, the tenant may be liable to the subtenant. 66 To protect its option to renew, the subtenant should request or require a recognition agreement from the landlord when negotiating a sublease, whereby the landlord agrees to recognize the sublease if the prime lease terminates due to the tenant/sublandlord’s default. 67

The Impact of Bankruptcy Proceedings on Assignments and Subleases

Bankruptcy laws can have a significant impact on commercial leases when the tenant files for bankruptcy protection. Generally, a trustee is appointed to administer the bankruptcy estate, except in Chapter 11 cases where the debtor-in-possession is the tenant. 68 For debtors with executory contracts and/or unexpired leases, 11 USC § 365 contains a series of rules that govern those documents. Section 365 of the bankruptcy code provides the tenant/debtor with the statutory right to assume or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases to which it is a party, subject to objections by creditors and other parties-in-interest, and ultimately the court’s approval. 69 The debtor may, in turn, assign the lease if the assignee provides “adequate assurance of future performance.” 70 During the period between filing the bankruptcy petition and the date on which the lease is assumed or rejected, the tenant must continue to pay rent and perform the material terms of the lease. 71 It should be noted that written waivers of § 362’s automatic stay have been found to be unenforceable unless they are part of a previous bankruptcy proceeding. 72 Thus, landlords should not assume that a waiver in the lease is enforceable if the tenant files for bankruptcy.

From the debtor’s perspective, the right to reject the lease is “vital to the basic purpose of Chapter 11” because it can free the tenant from the obligation to pay all future rent under the lease. 73 If a lease is rejected with bankruptcy court approval, the debtor has no legal interest in the lease or the leased premises, and it must vacate the leased premises. If, however, the debtor fails to vacate the premises, the landlord can file a motion to lift the automatic stay so it can file or continue an eviction action in state court. If the debtor rejects the lease, the landlord may have a claim for “rejection damages” pursuant to 11 USC § 502(b)(6), subject to the mitigation-of-damages duty. 74

As a condition to assuming the lease, the debtor must cure all monetary defaults and provide adequate assurances of future performance under the lease. 75 A debtor who assumes the lease may be able to assign the lease free of restrictions on transfer set forth in the lease and over the landlord’s objection, 76 which may turn out to be a significant right for the debtor if it holds a below-market lease with sufficient time remaining on the lease term. However, a bankruptcy court has discretion to reject an assignment if it finds, for example, that the assignment would disrupt the tenant mix by changing the image of a shopping center or violating the use restriction in the lease. 77 A landlord may favorably view the debtor’s assumption because it assures continuation of the lease and the cure of existing defaults. But if the tenant is holding a below-market lease, the landlord may favor rejection to enable it to negotiate a new lease. A landlord may object to the debtor’s attempted lease assumption if the landlord disagrees with the debtor’s plan to cure the default or believes the debtor has not provided adequate assurance that the default will be cured or the debtor will perform in the future.

Section 365(b)(3)(C) of the bankruptcy code provides specific protections for “a lease of real property in a shopping center” by providing that no assignment can occur without assurances that use clauses and other provisions vital to the operation of the shopping center will continue to be performed, “including (but not limited to) provisions such as a radius, location, use, or exclusivity provision, and will not breach any such provision contained in any other lease, financing agreement, or master agreement relating to such shopping center.” The purpose of § 365(b)(3)(C) “is to preserve the landlord’s bargained-for protections with respect to premises use and other matters that are spelled out in the lease with the debtor-tenant.” 78 Moreover, § 365(b)(3)(D) requires adequate assurance “that assumption or assignment of such lease will not disrupt any tenant mix or balance in such shopping center.” Despite the bankruptcy code’s language protecting shopping centers, some bankruptcy courts have found lease provisions that limit the use of the shopping center premises to be per se restraints on alienation. 79 To avoid an adverse ruling if a shopping center tenant files for bankruptcy, a landlord should arm itself with as much evidence and expert testimony as possible to show a disruption in tenant mix or a real potential for violating other tenants’ rights if an assignment is allowed. 80

While a tenant’s bankruptcy filing places the lease in limbo, a landlord can be proactive by approaching the tenant to determine whether it intends to reject or assume the lease. Landlords and tenants should not treat the existing lease as a static document that presents the tenant with a “take it or leave it” proposition for assumption. If the tenant voices concerns about the current lease, the landlord can renegotiate the lease to entice the tenant to assume a modified lease (subject to court approval) that keeps the tenant in the premises and paying rent.

Negotiating Lease Transfer Provisions

Negotiating lease transfer provisions is an important process for both the landlord and the tenant because, at some time in the future, the landlord or the tenant may be forced to accept a previously unknown or undesirable counterparty to the lease. It is critical that attorneys impress upon their respective clients the short-term and long-term ramifications that could result from their negotiations of the lease transfer provisions. Landlords and tenants should consider the following issues when negotiating assignment and subletting provisions.

The Landlord’s Perspective

• The landlord’s primary objective in negotiating assignment and subleasing provisions is control , including control over the mix of tenants and control over the use of the leased premises. Thus, the landlord will use the transfer provisions to protect its interests in the premises.
• A landlord’s foremost concern is almost always the tenant’s ability to pay rent, in full, on a timely basis. A landlord should negotiate requirements that a prospective assignee or subtenant must meet, such as minimum net worth and minimum gross sales.
• The landlord can protect itself by including a right to recapture the premises if a tenant seeks to assign its lease or to sublet its premises. However, landlords should carefully consider whether to include language that terminates the lease automatically upon receipt of an assignment request because it could constitute a restraint on alienation, which is disfavored, and the landlord may prefer the leasehold to continue. 81
• The landlord should keep the original tenant on the hook. Landlords should oppose any transfer provision that relieves the original tenant of its obligations under the lease upon an assignment. Having a tenant with a vested interest in the assignee’s ability to perform the lease is helpful to ensure that a lease is transferred to a worthy transferee. Additionally, in the event the assignee does default, if the original tenant’s liability has been preserved, the landlord’s chances of recovery are improved.
• The landlord should limit the use rights of a subsequent assignee or subtenant. A landlord should seek to protect its right to control the mix of tenants, particularly in retail settings, so as not to violate exclusive use provisions. 82 Moreover, exclusives and use restrictions held by other tenants at a shopping center must be considered in conjunction with a potential change in use that may occur upon assignment or subletting.
• The landlord should seek to share in excess rent. 83 For example, where a tenant assigns its lease or subleases its premises, it may be paid more than the amount the tenant is obligated to pay the landlord under the lease. If the assignment or sublease had not been entered into, those same financial accommodations would theoretically have been available to the landlord if it had leased directly to the assignee or subtenant. Accordingly, a landlord should seek the right to share in this excess financial consideration along with the tenant, or if it has the leverage, to obtain 100% of such excess.

The Tenant’s Perspective

• The tenant’s goal is maintaining flexibility. The tenant’s ability to maintain flexibility through the lease largely depends on its leverage to negotiate favorable lease terms. A new business seeking space in a desirable retail shopping center may have little or no leverage to negotiate the transfer provisions, but a large corporation leasing significant space may have considerable negotiating strength. Thus, it is imperative that the tenant’s leasing broker and attorney understand the market forces at play in any lease negotiation.
• The tenant should seek flexibility to share the leased premises or certain portions of it (i.e., floor space, utilities, and parking) with its related entities and affiliates with which it has a business relationship, without having to seek the landlord’s consent in each instance. This issue is particularly important for large companies with divisions that operate under different business names.
• The tenant should also seek flexibility to restructure its organization without the landlord and the lease acting as an impediment to such alteration, by negotiating into the lease specific language permitting such changes. The tenant’s ability to reorganize its business, either through a merger, consolidation, or sale, could be delayed or impeded by the landlord under the transfer provisions if these provisions are not properly negotiated at the letter of intent stage or before the lease is executed.
• The tenant should maintain an exit strategy if the premises no longer satisfy its business needs because it has outgrown the space or needs less space. This is particularly important in the era of COVID-19. For example, start-up companies can quickly outgrow their leased premises, but if the landlord does not have more space available, the company must seek out new or additional space, frequently at a higher rate. Conversely, a change in economic forces can cause the tenant’s business to quickly retract. Thus, prospective tenants should be mindful to negotiate termination and rights of first refusal options for newly available space in the same building, with the end goal of ensuring that the size of their leased space does not impair their business objectives. 84
• The tenant should insist that the landlord’s right to approve a lease transfer not be unreasonably withheld, if the landlord insists on reserving such right. The lease should detail the specific standards the tenant must meet to obtain approval, such as the transferee’s minimum net worth and minimum business experience.
• Counsel for the tenant should attempt to include a provision for automatically releasing the tenant and any guarantor from further liability at the time of the lease transfer or after the transfer occurs if the assignee or sublessee can meet or exceed certain financial marks, such as net worth, sales, or revenue.
• The tenant should negotiate (1) the right to revoke a transfer request during a defined period after the landlord issues a notice to terminate and recapture the premises, and (2) a reasonable period to vacate the premises before the tenant will be subject to eviction proceedings if the tenant does not revoke the transfer request. Where the landlord insists on a termination and recapture provision, this rescission right provides a tenant the flexibility to stop the recapture process according to the tenant’s particular circumstances and commercial exigencies.

The relationships established between the parties to a lease, sublease, or assignment can be complicated. While the ability to transfer the lease can be a valuable tool for the tenant, the landlord’s interest in protecting its investment by choosing its occupants is equally compelling. However, a balance can be struck that provides the tenant the flexibility it needs while preserving the landlord’s control and minimizing its risk. During lease negotiations, both parties should recognize that changing circumstances during the lease term could trigger the need to assign the lease or sublet the premises. If thoughtful attention is given to negotiating the transfer provisions, the parties can assure themselves that, if the need arises to transfer the lease, their respective interests will be reasonably protected.

Thank you for your interest in Colorado Lawyer!

You have reached your maximum number of free articles.

For unlimited access to Colorado Lawyer articles, log in to your CBA account or join the Colorado Bar Association. For technical support, email [email protected] .

Adam F. Aldrich is the founder of Aldrich Legal, LLC, a Denver-based law firm focused on real estate and business transactions and litigation—(303) 325-5683. Coordinating Editor: Christopher D. Bryan .

Explore This Issue

Resources for Pro Se Litigation in the US District Court for the District of Colorado

Access to justice by kristen l. mix.

The Colorado Appellate Courts’ Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

Judges’ corner by gilbert m. román and lino lipinsky de orlov.

The Perpetual Discussion

The sidebar by mark levy, related topics.

1 . Schneiker v. Gordon , 732 P.2d 603, 606 (Colo. 1987) (recognizing the “dual nature of a lease” as both a contract and a conveyance of an interest in land).

2 . Id. at 606–07.

3 . Shaffer v. George , 171 P. 881, 882 (Colo. 1917).

4 . Gordon Inv. Co. v. Jones , 227 P.2d 336, 340 (Colo. 1951).

5 . Shaffer , 171 P. at 882.

6 . Roget v. Grand Pontiac, Inc. , 5 P.3d 341, 345 (Colo.App. 1999) (“after the assignment, the assignee becomes primarily liable for the obligations under the contract, while the assignor remains secondarily liable”).

7 . Gordon Inv. Co. , 227 P.2d at 340.

8 . J.E. Martin, Inc. v. Interstate 8th St. , 585 P.2d 299, 301 (Colo.App. 1978) (“the delegation of duties under a lease and their assumption by a third person do not absolve the original lessee, absent the lessor’s knowledge and consent, simply by virtue of the conduct of the lessee and third party”). See also 1 Friedman and Randolph Jr., Friedman on Leases § 7:7.2 (Practising Law Institute 5th ed. 2013).

9 . V.O.B. Co. v. Hang It Up, Inc. , 691 P.2d 1157, 1159 (Colo.App. 1984).

10 . Friedman and Randolph Jr. , supra note 8 at § 7:4.2.

11 . Barbuti, “Assignments Pro Tanto And Why To Avoid Them,” 22 The Practical Real Estate Lawyer 24, 24–25 (Sept. 2006).

12 . Id. at 24.

13 . Id. at 23 (reprinted in part).

14 . Parrish Chiropractic Ctrs., P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 874 P.2d 1049, 1052 (Colo. 1994) (“Contract rights generally are assignable, except where assignment is prohibited by contract or by operation of law or where the contract involves a matter of personal trust or confidence”).

15 . Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Lindauer , 280 P.2d 444, 447 (Colo. 1955). See also Malouff v. Midland Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n , 509 P.2d 1240, 1243 (Colo. 1973) (recognizing that “[t]he common law doctrine of restraints on alienation is a part of the law in Colorado”).

16 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at § 7:3.3. See also Malouff , 509 P.2d at 1243 (holding “that the question of the invalidity of a restraint depends upon its reasonableness in view of the justifiable interests of the parties”).

17 . Beck v. Giordano , 356 P.2d 264, 265 (Colo. 1960).

18 . Lindauer , 280 P.2d at 447.

19 . Fink v. Montgomery Elevator Co. of Colo. , 421 P.2d 735, 738 (Colo. 1966).

20 . Routt Cty. Mining Co. v Stutheit , 72 P.2d 692, 693 (Colo. 1937).

21 . Parr v. Triple L & J Corp. , 107 P.3d 1104 (Colo.App. 2004).

22 . Cafeteria Operators L.P. v. AMCAP/Denver Ltd. P’ship , 972 P.2d 276, 278 (Colo.App. 1998).

23 . Id. See also Basnett v. Vista Vill. Mobile Home Park , 699 P.2d 1343, 1346 (Colo.App. 1984) (holding that a landlord may not unreasonably refuse consent under a silent consent clause because that result “incorporates the principles of fair-dealing and reasonableness and also preserves freedom of contract”), rev’d on other grounds , 731 P.2d 700 (Colo. 1987).

24 . List v. Dahnke , 638 P.2d 824, 825 (Colo.App. 1981).

25 . Cafeteria Operators L.P. , 972 P.2d at 279.

26 . List , 638 P.2d at 825.

28 . Ring v. Mpath Interactive, Inc. , 302 F.Supp.2d 301, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Toys “R” Us, Inc., No. 88 C 10349, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *111 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 29, 1995); Restatement (Second) of Prop.—Landlord and Tenant § 15.2 cmt. g (American Law Inst. 1976).

29 . E.g., Campbell v. Westdahl , 715 P.2d 288, 293 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1985).

30 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at § 7:3.4 (citing cases).

31 . Cent. Bus. Coll. v. Rutherford , 107 P. 279, 280 (Colo. 1910); List , 638 P.2d at 825 (dictum).

32 . Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. , 709 P.2d 837, 845 (Cal. 1985).

33 . Id. at 845. See also Econ. Rentals, Inc. v. Garcia , 819 P.2d 1306, 1317 (N.M. 1991).

34 . Cafeteria Operators L.P. , 972 P.2d at 277.

36 . Id. at 279.

38 . List , 638 P.2d at 825.

39 . Toys “R” Us, Inc. , U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *124 (landlord’s refusal before it has relevant information that should be obtained in making the consent decision may be unreasonable).

40 . Shaffer, The Sublease and Assignment Deskbook at 80–81 (American Bar Ass’n 2d ed. 2016).

41 . Compare Parr , 107 P.3d at 1107 (affirming trial court’s ruling that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent where the landlord delayed consent, which caused the proposed assignees to withdraw their offer to purchase the business) with Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *124 (landlord’s refusal before it has relevant information that should be obtained in making the consent decision may be unreasonable).

42 . Fahrenwald v. LaBonte , 653 P.2d 806, 811 (Idaho Ct.App. 1982).

43 . Parr , 107 P.3d at 1106.

45 . Id. at 1107.

46 . Bert Bidwell Inv. Corp. v. LaSalle and Schiffer , P.C., 797 P.2d 811 (Colo.App. 1990).

47 . Id. at 811.

48 . Id. at 812.

50 . Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *115 (citations omitted) (“where a lease contains provisions giving further meaning to a reasonableness clause, the standard of reasonableness varies”); Shaffer, supra note 40 at 80–81.

51 . Golden Eye, LTC v. Fame Co. , No. 0603166/2007, 2008 N.Y. Misc 8571 at *16 (N.Y. Gen Term Jan. 16, 2008) (“the Court may not determine reasonableness if withholding consent is based on grounds that were not included in the letter refusing consent”).

52 . Shaffer, supra note 40 at 74–75.

53 . Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc. , 826 P.2d 710 (Cal. 1992).

54 . Lindauer , 280 P.2d at 447.

55 . Murphy v. Traynor , 135 P.2d 230, 231 (Colo. 1943).

56 . Shoemaker v. Shaug , 490 P.2d 439, 441 (Wash.Ct.App. 1971) (finding that the tenant was not in default of the anti-assignment provision because it could reassign the lease back to itself).

57 . La Casa Nino, Inc. v. Plaza Esteban , 762 P.2d 669, 672 (Colo. 1988) (citing Schneiker v. Gordon , 732 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1987)).

58 . Gordon Inv. Co. , 227 P.2d at 260–61 (tenant’s subletting was held a breach that permitted landlord to terminate the lease).

59 . Shakey’s Inc. v. Caple , 855 F.Supp. 1035, 1043–44 (E.D.Ark. 1994) (holding that the landlord was estopped from terminating a lease on account of an unapproved sublease because the landlord did not act promptly).

60 . Merkowitz v. Mahoney , 121 Colo. 38, 42 (Colo. 1949) (“It is the general rule that any act done by a landlord, with knowledge of an existing right of forfeiture, which recognizes the existence of the lease is a waiver of the right to enforce the forfeiture”); Werner v. Baker , 693 P.2d 385, 387 (Colo.App. 1984) (“the lessor’s acceptance of rent accruing after the breach of an anti-assignment clause, with knowledge of the breach, constitutes a waiver of the right to terminate the lease for breach of that clause”). Cf. Nouri v. Wester & Co. , 833 P.2d 848, 851 (Colo.App. 1992) (holding that waiver of conditions against assignment by accepting rent did not carry over to other provisions in the lease).

61 . La Casa Nino, Inc. , 762 P.2d at 672.

62 . Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. , 826 P.2d 710.

63 . Schneiker , 732 P.2d at 611.

64 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at §§ 7:5.1 and 7:7.1.

65 . Tiger Crane Martial Arts Inc. v. Franchise Stores Realty Corp. , 235 A.D.2d 994, 995 (N.Y.App.Div. 1997) (“It is well settled that where, as here, a sublease is expressly made subject to the terms of a master lease, the subtenant has no legal right to compel the tenant to exercise an option for renewal of the entire demised premises in order to permit the subtenant to exercise an option for renewal of its subleased premises, absent proof of an agreement on the part of the tenant to exercise its option to renew for the benefit of the subtenant or evidence of special circumstances entitling the subtenant to such relief”).

66 . Burgess Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Fleming Cos. , 190 W. Va. 169, 175 (W.Va. 1993) (discussing liability of sublandlord to subtenant for failure to exercise renewal option after request from subtenant).

67 . Senn, Commercial Real Estate Leases: Preparation, Negotiation, and Forms , § 13.14 (Wolters Kluwer 6th ed. 2019).

68 . 11 USC § 1107.

69 . 11 USC § 365(a).

70 . 11 USC § 365(f)(2)(B).

71 . 11 USC § 365(d)(3).

72 . In re DB Capital Holdings, LLC , 454 B.R. 804, 816 (Bankr. D.Colo. 2011) (“waivers, unless they were part of a previous bankruptcy proceeding . . . should not be enforced”).

73 . NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco , 465 U.S. 513, 528 (1984); 11 USC § 502(b)(6).

74 . In re Shane Co. , 464 B.R. 32, 38–41 (Bankr. D.Colo. 2012) (discussing damages claim under 11 USC § 502(b)(6)).

75 . 11 USC § 365(b)(1).

76 . 11 USC § 365(f); In re Bricker Systems, Inc. , 44 B.R. 952 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984) (recognizing that § 365(f) invalidates restrictions on assignment of contracts or leases by a debtor or trustee and allows assignment of assumed contracts at a later date).

77 . In re Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. , 135 B.R. 941 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991); In re Martin Paint Stores , 199 B.R. 258 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d , S. Blvd., Inc. v. Martin Paint Stores , 207 B.R. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

78 . In re Trak Auto Corp. , 367 F.3d 237, 244 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).

79 . In re Bradlee Stores, Inc. , No. 00-16033, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14755 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001) (holding that restriction on assignment violated the anti-assignment provisions of § 365(f)); In re Rickel Home Ctrs., Inc. , 240 B.R. 826, 832 (D.Del. 1998) (striking restrictive use provision).

80 . In re Trak Auto Group , 367 F.3d at 242 (enforcing use provision concerning the sale of automobile parts and accessories in shopping center lease); In re J. Peterman Co. , 232 B.R. 366 (Bankr. E.D.Ky. 1999) (rejecting assignment of shopping center lease where proposed assignment would violate radius restriction in lease and assignee did not sell similar merchandise as the original tenant). But see In re Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 587 B.R. 304, 307 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2018) (overruling landlord’s objection to the debtor’s assignment on the grounds that it would violate the exclusivity provision of another lease in the shopping center and would disrupt the shopping center’s tenant mix and balance).

81 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at § 7:1.1.

82 . In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. , 127 B.R. 744, 752–54 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing rights of landlord to protect the tenant mix at the shopping center in the context of the lease and a subsequent bankruptcy filing of the tenant).

83 . Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. , 826 P.2d 710 (upholding the landlord’s contractual right to capture excess rent).

84 . For an interesting discussion on the assignability of rights of first refusal, see Mitchell, “Can a Right of First Refusal Be Assigned?” 985 U. Chi. L. Rev. (2001).

As these cases illustrate, if a landlord wishes to withhold consent absent a sole and unconditional contractual right to do so, it must have fact-based reasons for doing so and cannot arbitrarily withhold or delay consent.

How can we help?

• 13 March 2018
• Commercial Real Estate

Novation and Assignment: Sisters, Not Twins

There’s often, understandably, a bit of uncertainty about whether (and how) a party to a contract can “assign” (transfer) its rights, or pass on its obligations, under that contract, to another person.

In law, the general rule is that only the original parties to the contract can discharge or fulfil the obligations and enforce the rights created under it and nobody else gets a look in. This is called “privity of contract”.

Essentially, novation and assignment are both mechanisms to get around this restriction. However, while the end result is the same, there are some important differences between these two mechanisms.

Under an assignment, one party (the assignor) keeps performing their obligations under the contract, but transfers some or all rights to a third party (the assignee). The parties to the contract remain the same so privity of contract is preserved.

Assignments can be legal or equitable. In order for an assignment to be a legal assignment, the assignment must be agreed in writing, signed by the assignor, and the other party to the contract must be given notice of the assignment. A legal assignment is usually preferable as this allows the assignee to enforce the rights in their own name directly.

If the assignment is an equitable assignment because it does not fit the criteria for a legal assignment (for example, the other party was not given notice of it), the assignee will need to get the assignor to enforce the assigned rights on its behalf.

Contracts often require the consent of the other party before any assignment can take place. Some contracts expressly prohibit assignment. However, even where there is such wording in the contract, there is nothing stopping you from asking the party to consent to the assignment anyway, though you should take care to record any agreement in writing.

The main point to remember is that you cannot assign obligations under a contract to another party – you can only assign your benefits or rights. Even if the assignee agrees that they will take on the obligations under the contract, it is still the assignor who remains responsible for performance of the obligations and liable if they are not. In practice, what often happens is that the assignee does take over the performance of the contractual obligations but simply agrees to indemnify the assignor for any failures in performance.

It is also important to note that some rights may not be legally capable of assignment.

Stephen James

View profile

Email Stephen

+44 118 960 4674

When you novate a contract, the original contract effectively ceases to exist and is replaced with a new contract. The new contract contains exactly the same rights and obligations as the original contract, except that it substitutes one of the original parties (the outgoing party) with a third party (the incoming party).

As you are creating a new contract, technically you need to provide fresh consideration. Usually a simple novation agreement between all the parties will be enough, but, if there is any doubt, the parties may choose to execute the novation as a deed instead, which dispenses with the need for consideration.

The novation agreement (or deed) will specify what happens to the liabilities under the original contract. In a typical novation, the outgoing party would be released from all liabilities and the incoming party would inherit these. However, this is up to the parties to decide; they could even decide that the outgoing party will remain liable for all of the liabilities under the original contract.

Novating the contract will release the outgoing party from any future obligations which may arise. This is a crucial difference between novation and assignment.

Although the novation agreement itself can be simple, the process of getting all the parties to the table to agree and execute might be more complex. The main issue for an outgoing party will be persuading the other original party to sign. The other original party often has concerns about service continuity and may want certain assurances or information about the incoming third party.

Equally, the other original party is not obliged to agree: they can refuse to novate and then sue for breach if the party trying to exit the contract fails to meet its contractual obligations. As they still have this other option, in any novation scenario, the outgoing party is probably in a weaker bargaining position, and the other original party may well use this to their advantage.

About this article

• Subject Novation and Assignment: Sisters, Not Twins
• Author Stephen James
• Expertise Commercial Real Estate
• Published 13 March 2018

Disclaimer This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

• 26 April 2024

Prime Minister Proposes Changes to Fit Notes

The Prime Minister recently announced a raft of changes, to be implemented in the next parliament, aimed at reducing the number of people who are economically inactive due to illness.

• 25 April 2024

Food for thought when opening a restaurant

In this article, we provide an overview of the key considerations for restaurant entrepreneurs to keep in mind when starting their new venture.

• 24 April 2024
• Privacy and Data Protection

Personal Data FAQs

Personal data refers to any information related to an identifiable living individual. 

• 23 April 2024
• Public Procurement

Procurement Act 2023 go-live date confirmed

The Government announced yesterday that the go-live date for the new Procurement Act 2023 will be 28 October 2024.

• 22 April 2024

Think tank study finds that up to 8 million jobs may be at risk from AI

Injuring someone’s feelings through acts of discrimination, harassment or victimisation can be a costly business.

• 19 April 2024

Amanda Glover comments on ‘Employment law isn’t working for anyone’ for HR Magazine

In HR magazine, Amanda Glover, Associate at Clarkslegal responds to the recent article titled ‘Employment law isn’t working for anyone’ by Libby Purves in The Times last week.

Privity of Contract

Jump to Section

Privity of contract refers to the key legal concept of establishing a direct and exclusive association between individuals who have executed a lawful contract. It implies that only the individuals involved in the contractual arrangement have enforceable privileges and responsibilities under that specific contract. In simpler words, the privity of a contract dictates that people or businesses who are not parties to a contract cannot execute its provisions or be held responsible for its performance. This blog post will discuss the privity of contract, its exceptions, its importance, and more.

Importance of the Privity of Contract

While the privity of contract rule was strictly applied in the past, modern contract law has seen vital developments and exceptions to this principle. Below are several reasons why privity of contract remains an essential aspect of contract law:

• Clarity and Certainty: By limiting the enforceability of a contract to only the involved parties, the privity rule brings clarity and certainty to contractual relationships. It helps prevent confusion and disputes arising if unrelated third parties are allowed to intervene.
• Freedom of Contract: Privity of contract maintains the freedom of contracting parties to decide with whom they wish to be bound by the contract terms. It ensures that parties can negotiate and agree on provisions without fear of unintended obligations to third parties.
• Confidentiality and Privacy: Contractual agreements often contain sensitive and confidential information. The privity rule protects this information from being disclosed to unrelated parties, thereby maintaining the privacy of the contractual relationship.

Exceptions to the Rule of the Privity of Contract

The privity of contract rule is a fundamental regulation of contract law that typically defines that only individuals involved in a contract can execute its provisions or be held accountable for any violations. It shows that people or businesses not directly involved in a contract cannot file a lawsuit based on its provisions. While the privity of contract regulation has been an essential component of contract law, it is not without exceptions. These exceptions diversify the scope of parties who can execute a contract or be subject to its provisions, ensuring fairness and efficiency in contract-related issues. Below are some of the key exceptions to the privity of contract rule.

• Assignment of Rights: Another exception to the privity of contract regulation occurs when one of the parties to the contract transfers its privileges and responsibilities to a third party. This allocation of rights is known as an assignment. When a suitable assignment happens, the third party steps into the shoes of the existing individual and receives the right to execute the contract against the other contracting individual. The assignee effectively gets involved in the contract, even though they were not part of the initial contract.
• Novation: Novation is a legal concept that authorizes substituting one individual associated with the contract with a new person, with all entities' consent. Unlike an assignment, which shares only the privileges and responsibilities of one party, novation substitutes an existing individual with a new one entirely. In addition, the new person must adhere to the original contract terms and assume all rights and obligations, effectively becoming a party to the contract without any privity with the other original contracting individual.
• Tortious Liability: The privity of contract regulation can also be overlooked in specific cases concerning tort claims. While contract law predominantly deals with violations of contractual obligations between parties, tort law handles civil wrongs and breaches that cause damage to others. In some cases, an individual not involved in a contractual association might face damages due to an infringement of that arrangement. In this situation, the person facing damages may be entitled to register a lawsuit in tort against the individual who breached the contract, even if there is no direct contractual association between them.
• Statutory Exceptions: In some jurisdictions, laws have been legislated to create exceptions to the privity of contract regulation. These regulations usually give specific privileges to third parties not involved in the agreement, allowing them to implement certain conditions or seek remedies in particular circumstances. These statutory exceptions can differ greatly from one jurisdiction to another and may only apply to specific agreements or individuals.

Nicholas M.

Challenges of the Privity of Contract

The privity of contract rule can lead to some challenges in certain situations that are as follows:

• Evolving Business Environment: The traditional privity rule was developed in simpler times when business relationships were more straightforward. However, today's interconnected global economy often involves complex and interdependent networks of relationships, necessitating a more flexible approach to contract enforcement.
• Consumer Protection: In consumer transactions, privity of contract can present challenges for consumers seeking legal remedies against manufacturers or suppliers for defective products or services. Consumer protection laws have attempted to address this issue, but gaps may still exist in certain jurisdictions.
• Assignments and Novations: Privity of contract can complicate assignments and novations, where one party transfers its rights or obligations to another party. The legal implications of these transfers may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific contract terms.
• International Transactions: In international business transactions , the lack of uniformity in privity rules across different jurisdictions can create complexities and uncertainties in contract enforcement, leading to potential disputes and conflicts of laws.

Approaches to Overcome Challenges in the Privity of Contract

Below are the possible solutions to the challenges faced by the privity of contract.

• Expanding Third-Party Rights: Some legal systems have introduced exceptions to the privity of contract, allowing certain third parties to enforce contract terms directly. These exceptions are often limited to specific situations, such as insurance contracts or beneficiary rights in trusts .
• Multi-Party Agreements: In complex transactions, parties can consider drafting multi-party agreements that explicitly define the rights and responsibilities of all relevant stakeholders. This approach can provide clarity and reduce potential conflicts arising from privity limitations.
• Adoption of Model Regulations: Globally acknowledged model regulations, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), offers a framework for contract enactment that assesses the challenges of privity in cross-border deals.

Key Terms for the Privity of Contract

• Incidental Beneficiary: It refers to a party who unintentionally gains some benefit from a contract but lacks the legal right to enforce its terms.
• Contractual Intention: Contractual intention refers to the requirement that for privity to exist, the parties must intend to create legal relations and be bound by the contract.
• Vicarious Performance: When one party fulfills contractual obligations on behalf of another, but privity is still maintained between the contracting parties.
• Collateral Contract: A separate contract between one of the original contracting parties and a third party, which can create privity between them.
• Quasi-Contract: A legal remedy in certain situations where a court imposes contractual obligations on parties to prevent unjust enrichment, even without a formal contract.

Final Thoughts on the Privity of Contract

A privity of contract is a fundamental doctrine in contract law that oversees the rights and responsibilities of parties in a contractual association. While it provides transparency, certainty, and privacy protection in contractual dealings, it also comes with exceptions to accommodate the legal interests of third parties. As the landscape of enterprise transactions continues to grow, the privity of contract rule may undergo further improvements to strike a balance between safeguarding the interests of the parties directly involved in an agreement and ensuring fairness for other affected parties.

If you want free pricing proposals from vetted lawyers that are 60% less than typical law firms, click here to get started. By comparing multiple proposals for free, you can save the time and stress of finding a quality lawyer for your business needs.

Meet some of our Lawyers

With over ten years of intellectual property experience, I’m happy to work on your contractual matter. I am very diligent and enjoy meeting tight deadlines. Drafting memoranda, business transactional documents, termination notices, cease and desist letters, licenses and letter agreements are all in my wheelhouse! Working in a variety of fields, from construction to pharmaceutical, I enjoy resolving any disputes that come across my desk.

Matt is a licensed attorney based out of Dallas, Texas. Despite having recently graduated, Matt has been immersed in the world of Corporate law throughout law school and beyond. As a result, he has benefitted from the unique and advantageous position of experiencing and working on a wide array of matters, such as reviewing, drafting and negotiating contracts, overseeing regulatory compliance, business formation, risk management, and much more. Contact Matt today for a free consultation!

I have practiced law for more than 35 years in the State of Texas. I am proud of the relationships I have formed with my clients and the high level of legal advice I have provided over these many years. I am responsive and will promptly address your particular situation. For 35 years I have counseled individuals, partnerships and corporations with regard to business formation, real estate transactions and issues, employer/employee relationships, contracts, estate planning and asset protection. I am licensed to practice law in all state courts in Texas and all federal courts. I have represented plaintiffs and defendants throughout the state in cases ranging from contract disputes to injury claims. I have worked with every type of business you can imagine from individuals to "mom and pop" businesses and businesses with assets of more than $10,000,000. My clients' businesses range from large construction contractors, investment companies, oil and gas companies, and commercial landlords, to name a few.

After graduating law school in 2015, I practiced for a few years in LA, then becoming a contractor for large litigation projects. Now working from home in Kansas, I can offer LA service at Midwest prices.

Ms. Tanu Chaturvedi Esq. brings vast experience: experience as Corporate Counsel at a multi-million dollar international corporation, experience as a legal & business leader in the legal department at the world's leading mission capability integrator in the nation's capital that has been named a Top 100 Employer Forbes by state & Top 25 Defense Contractor in the world & named Top 7 in the Washington Technology Top 100 2022 & one of the largest defense contractors in the marketplace & has also been named as Top Managed Company by The Wallstreet Journal & included in the Inc. 500, experience as the sole Attorney at a national company that was recognized in 2017 as a top employer in the capital by "The Washington Post" & has also been listed on the Inc. 5000 more than once as one of the fastest growing companies in the nation, & in 2019, & named as a Finalist for the DC Moxie award: for businesses that demonstrate significant boldness & innovation in business strategy, experience working at one of the world's largest insurance brokerage firms, one of the largest law firms in the capital, a boutique start-up that specializes in investigations, security, & risk, the world’s largest professional service firm (largest of the “big 4” companies) in conjunction with the nation’s executive law enforcement agency, experience working at a corporation with global reach that was lead by a former cabinet member of the Clinton administration, experience working at a Fortune 500 in one of the world's largest insurance markets, at an internationally recognized boutique law firm, experience as the only female legal professional in the felony division of a criminal department in the nation's most dangerous jurisdiction as an undergrad, & experience working in the offices of public officials. She is also a graduate from two different internationally recognized institutions that have a record of turning out graduates with the skill to lead in their industries & distinguished law school graduate from an ABA accredited law school that received recognition for academic & leadership achievement. She is an invited contributor to legal blogs, and she enjoys advocating for increased literacy. Notably, she also supports advocacy for the performing arts as a former graduate of a magnet school for the performing arts. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to her with any questions, and she looks forward to hearing from your team.

I am an attorney licensed in California with particular experience in local policy work, workplace justice, and environmental law. I have authored or co-authored over 30 amicus briefs (including one for which I received an Amicus Service Award from the International Municipal Lawyers Association), have extensive experience researching state law across the country and across issue areas, and pride myself in clearly and concisely distilling complex and/or technical legal concepts for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

Courtney A.

Hello! I am a transactional attorney enthusiastic about helping entrepreneurs launch and protect their businesses. Let me know how I can support you with drafting and negotiating contracts, setting up your LLC, copyrighting creative content, or trademarking your brand. I am experienced with drafting and negotiating business contracts, including service/vendor agreements, NDAs, marketing agreements, licensing agreements, terms & conditions, terms of use, and many more! I have helped companies develop strong template agreements and strategies for contract management. My goal is to deliver a simple, stress-free client experience!

Find the best lawyer for your project

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Need help with a Business Transaction?

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

CONTRACT LAWYERS BY TOP CITIES

• Austin Business Lawyers
• Boston Business Lawyers
• Chicago Business Lawyers
• Dallas Business Lawyers
• Denver Business Lawyers
• Houston Business Lawyers
• Los Angeles Business Lawyers
• New York Business Lawyers
• Phoenix Business Lawyers
• San Diego Business Lawyers
• Tampa Business Lawyers

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT LAWYERS BY CITY

• Austin Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Boston Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Chicago Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Dallas Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Denver Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Houston Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Los Angeles Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• New York Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Phoenix Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• San Diego Privity Of Contract Lawyers
• Tampa Privity Of Contract Lawyers

Legal Plans

ContractsCounsel made it very easy to find a lawyer to help our company with its legal needs.

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

How It Works

Want to speak to someone.

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

What Exactly is Privity?

One of the knocks against the legal profession is that it uses terms that are obscure or undecipherable by the rest of the population. One of those terms is “privity.” It gets thrown around in some circles with less than a full understanding of what the term means and how it may apply. Generally, the term “privity” connotes a close, direct, or successive relationship; one having a mutual interest or right. In the Landlord/Tenant context a Landlord and a Tenant have both “privity of contract” and “privity of estate.” There are significant differences between the two types of privity.

For example, privity of contract allows one party to a contract to enforce the other party’s promises. Let’s say Party A sells property to Party B. Parties A and B are in privity, and each may enforce the other’s promises as contained in the contract. However, Party B’s tenant is not in privity with Party A, and therefore has no right to enforce the terms of the contract between Party A and Party B against Party A. Thus, if Party A failed to make repairs as required in his contract with Party B, the tenant cannot sue Party A for failing to do so. There is no privity between Party A and the tenant. Party B, however, does have a right to enforce Party A’s promise to make repairs.

Privity of estate, on the other hand, allows a party to enforce promises that are considered to run with the land: that is, promises whose substance touches and concerns the land. The promise must relate directly to occupation, use or enjoyment of the premises. For example, a successor to a landlord, although not the original landlord, can enforce provisions in the lease relating to a tenant’s obligations to pay rent, taxes, and insurance and to make repairs. Tenants, on the other hand, have the right to enforce against a Landlord’s successor the right to quiet enjoyment of the property, a tenant’s option rights, exclusivity rights, and extension rights.

Privity becomes important when a tenant decides to assign his lease to a third party. Unless the assignee agrees to assume the lease, there is no privity between the landlord and the assignee. As a result, neither can enforce the lease against the other. In assignment situations, the landlord usually consents to the assignment and privity is not an issue. There are situations, however, where the landlord does not know of the assignment and the assignee does not assume the lease. Apart from the fact that this usually constitutes a default under the lease, there is no privity between landlord and the new “tenant” and neither can enforce the terms of the lease against the other.

In a sublease situation (where the tenant assigns less than the entire leased premises to a third party), there is no privity between the landlord and the sub-lessee. However, the sub-lessee, is in privity with the tenant-sublessor, who would be responsible for enforcing the lease provisions against the landlord.

Both parties in a landlord-tenant relationship should have a firm grasp of the concept of privity and how it may impact the rights and responsibilities of the parties in the event a third party is introduced into the relationship.

If you have any questions about this post or any other related matter, please contact me at [email protected] .

Related Posts

Similar posts.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more

• The original tenant no longer has privity of estate with the landlord and it cannot occupy the premises any more.
• the landlord expressly releases the original tenant; or
• there are state or local laws that establish the tenant's privity of contract terminated when the tenant's privity of estate terminated.
• The assignee and the landlord will have privity of estate and privity of contract as of the effective date of the assignment and assumption of the lease.
• The original tenant retains its privity of estate and privity of contract with the landlord.
• The subtenant does not have privity of estate or privity of contract with the landlord.
• The subtenant has privity of estate and privity of contract with the original tenant.

PLC US Antitrust, PLC US Bankruptcy & Restructuring, PLC US Capital Markets & Corporate Governance, PLC US Commercial Transactions, PLC US Corporate and M&A, PLC US Corporate and Securities, PLC US Data Privacy & Cybersecurity, PLC US Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, PLC US Federal Litigation, PLC US Finance, PLC US Glossary, PLC US Intellectual Property and Technology, PLC US Labor and Employment, PLC US Law Department, PLC US Real Estate, PLC US Tax, PLC US Trusts & Estates

Got Privity? Understanding Privity Of Estate And Privity Of Contract In California Real Property Leases

Parties to real estate contracts often change over time, whether as the result of an assignment, financing, or otherwise. Relatedly, additional parties (beyond those named in the underlying contract) may claim a property interest in the subject of such a contract, perhaps in connection with a security interest in the underlying fee in the form of a mortgage or a deed of trust, or a security interest in a leasehold estate by way of a leasehold mortgage. Just as it is fundamentally important for parties to real estate contracts to understand the nature and priority of their real estate interest as it relates to the rights of other interested parties, it is also crucial that parties be aware of the nature of the contractual relationships (and the consequential rights and obligations) between the various parties with potentially competing interests in the real property at issue. The distinction between privity of estate and privity of contract is an important part of this understanding, and as the recent California case, BRE DDR BR Whittwood CALLC v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach, makes clear, awareness of the distinction, which may appear esoteric at first glance, becomes crucial for understanding the ongoing rights and obligations of parties to real estate contracts as well as those of their successors and assigns.

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Related Posts

• Valid Liquidated Damages Or Unenforceable Penalties? A Discussion Of Recent California Appellate Court Decisions
• No Limitations And No Escape: The Long Tail Of Real Property Tax Liability Resulting From Entity Interest Transfers In California
• Landlord Leasing Fraud: The Orozco Case And Its Implications For Leasing Lawyers And Their Clients

Latest Posts

• First District Holds CEQA Challenge To Shooting Range Project On City-Owned Land In Unincorporated County Was Not Mooted By Project’s Construction During Trial Court Proceedings Despite Petitioner’s Failure To Seek Preliminary Injunction
• Fifth District Clarifies That Agricultural Conservation Easements (ACE’s) Qualify As Legally Permissible “Compensatory Mitigation” For Agricultural-Land Conversion Impacts Under CEQA Despite Not Ensuring No Net Loss

See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

Refine your interests »

Written by:

Published In:

Miller starr regalia on:.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

What's the difference between privity of contract and privity of estate?

Fixed-fee conveyancing solicitors: .

Contact Us Today: 

Clear, fixed-fees 

Fully-qualified conveyancing solicitors , tailored service , multiple office locations , decades of experience , home visits , leave a comment: .

• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• November 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• November 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• August 2018
• January 2018
• Accident at Work Compensation Claims
• Accident Injury Solicitors
• Accident Solicitors
• Accident Solicitorsa
• Agricultural Conveyancing
• Auction Conveyancing Solicitors
• Best Medical Negligence Solicitors
• Best Personal Injury Solicitors
• Car Accident Solicitors
• Care Home Negligence Solicitors
• Child Contact
• Commercial Conveyancing
• Conveyancing
• Conveyancing Lancashire
• Conveyancing Solicitors
• Conveyancing Solicitors Garstang
• Conveyancing Solicitors in Lancaster
• Conveyancing Solicitors in Preston
• Conveyancing Solicitors Lancaster
• Conveyancing Solicitors Longridge
• Conveyancing Solicitors Lytham
• Conveyancing Solicitors near me
• Conveyancing Solicitors Preston
• Court of Protection
• Cruise Ship Injuries
• Cycling Accident Claims
• Dental Negligence
• Estate Administration
• Estate Planning
• Expert Solicitors
• Falls from Height Compensation Claims
• Family advice
• Family Law Lancaster
• Family Solicitors Lancaster
• Financial Decisions
• First Time Buyers
• Food Allergy Compensation Claims
• Food Poisoning Compensation Claims
• Garstang Solicitors
• Inheritance
• Inheritance Tax
• Injury Compensation Claims
• Injury Solicitors Manchester
• Lancashire Solicitors
• Lancaster Family Solicitors
• Lancaster Law
• Lancaster Personal Injury Law
• Lancaster Property Law
• Lancaster Solicitors
• Lasting Power of Attorney
• Lasting Power of Attorney Solicitors
• Lasting Powers of Attorney
• Living Will
• Local Conveyancing Solicitors
• Local Family Solicitors
• Local Solicitors for Wills
• Longridge Solicitors
• LPA Solicitors near me
• Medical Negligence
• Mental Capacity
• Money Laundering
• No Win No Fee Solicitors
• Nut Allergy Compensation Claims
• Personal Injury
• Personal Injury Compensation Claims
• Personal Injury Law
• Personal Injury Solicitors
• Personal Injury Solicitors Longridge
• Personal Injury Solicitors Manchester
• personal injury solicitors Preston
• Preston Law
• Preston Property Law
• Preston Solicitors
• Probate Solicitors
• Probate Solicitors in Lancaster
• Probate Solicitors Near Me
• Property Advice
• Property Conveyancing Solicitors
• Property Law
• Property Solicitors
• Property Solicitors in Preston
• Property Solicitors Preston
• Road Accidents
• Road Traffic Accident Solicitors
• Settlement Agreements
• Solicitor Advice
• Solicitor Uk
• Solicitors For The Elderly
• Solicitors in Garstang
• Solicitors in Lancashire
• Solicitors in Lancaster
• Solicitors in Longridge
• Solicitors in Lytham
• Solicitors in Morecambe
• Solicitors in Preston
• Solicitors Lancaster
• Solicitors Morecambe
• Solicitors near me
• Solicitors Preston
• SolicitorsinLongridge
• Stamp Duty Advice
• Tenancy Agreements
• Terms and Conditions
• Wills & Probate
• Wills and Probate
• Your Local Solicitors

• Practical Law

Privity of Estate

Practical law glossary item 7-503-8122  (approx. 3 pages).

• The original tenant no longer has privity of estate with the landlord and it cannot occupy the premises any more.
• the landlord expressly releases the original tenant; or
• there are state or local laws that establish the tenant's privity of contract terminated when the tenant's privity of estate terminated.
• The assignee and the landlord will have privity of estate and privity of contract as of the effective date of the assignment and assumption of the lease.
• The original tenant retains its privity of estate and privity of contract with the landlord.
• The subtenant does not have privity of estate or privity of contract with the landlord.
• The subtenant has privity of estate and privity of contract with the original tenant.
• United States