Impudence wins, dispute over pre-emption right within contemplation period

I would not have agreed to the clause, or I would have waited another 4 weeks with my signature until the cooling-off period was over.

That the city exercises a right of first refusal can happen, but it does not cause any disadvantage. The right of first refusal of a private person is a killer. And if the statement that it is just a formality were correct - then why include the formality at all?

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

This approach is really terrible. Someone is trying to quickly grab a nice little sum.

Whereas something like this would be "only" annoying – but the clause with the 5% opens doors wide open. For me, it's unacceptable to leave something like that in the contract, because only morals could then stop a person, otherwise one would almost be stupid not to grab the money

what sense would the right of first refusal with a 5% compensation even make? what is it even designed for? as written above, the preferred party MUST compulsorily exercise this option, simply because he gets 5% (here at least €18,000) as a gift.

Maybe I misunderstood the initial post by . But as far as I understand him, the 5% are not in the notarial or any other contract. So, to my knowledge, there is no written fixed right of first refusal with a 5% compensation. The preferential party has proposed the 5% as one of 3 alternatives. Probably at first only orally. If the buyer agrees, a one-page contract is drawn up and that's that.

I find this approach absolutely disgusting. But – if not illegal, then permissible. Nowadays many people just ignore morals.

Something different, construction expert. Why don’t you let the preemptive right holder exercise the VR right? To make it effective, he actually has to buy the property, i.e., he pays real estate transfer tax and notary fees to his family and ends up as the sole owner. So he would have to buy out his family, which he can only do if he is sufficiently liquid.

It costs money, at least 3 months’ time, and whether he gets his capital back in 3 months is uncertain.

So far, you have only been threatened that it will be implemented, and you are promised that the corresponding clause will be deleted for 5%.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

I see it the same way as Dirk Grafe. Then he should just buy at the agreed conditions. The property is probably not something to be paid out of petty cash.

Hello Hello

I agree with Dirk and would proceed exactly the same way.
In such cases, I especially like to have my thick skin.



Olli

Something different, construction expert. Why don’t you let the pre-emptive rights holders exercise their purchase rights? To make that effective, they actually have to buy the property, i.e., they pay the property transfer tax and the notary fees to their family and end up being the sole owners. So they would have to buy out their family, which they can only do if they are sufficiently liquid.

The construction expert did write that the buyers carefully weigh whether to engage in a lengthy legal dispute. Those who want to build usually don’t have 2-3 years’ time; they drop it and look for something else.

Maybe a compromise is reached, but as I see it, the buyers have to dig deeper into their pockets. If not, the property remains in the family and is offered again after a certain time, and buyers will certainly still be waiting. And whether they would really sue then, I doubt. Then the whole thing fizzles out, where there is no plaintiff, so no judge.

But I also would not have accepted such a clause. Something like that is considered beforehand and not a reflection period after the signature. Pre-emptive rights of municipalities and the state are something different.