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

Good evening,

Frank recognized it correctly, it is - in any case - morally questionable; in private land sales, I was not aware of it until now.

If our clients play for time, time passes; time which they - after years of searching for a suitable plot - no longer want to invest. And - an offer with known content is annoying, but not illegal; the pre-emptive right holder has the means to turn his announcement into reality.

Current status: the land seller is sharing the costs of her relative's immoral offer.

Rhenish greetings from the road

Why the pre-emptive right holder should be the scapegoat here is beyond me. The pre-emptive right was known. One should never rely on verbal statements of a seller; this is not a new insight. In this respect, I see this more as faulty advice to the buyer.

Why the holder of the pre-emption right should be the scapegoat here escapes me. The pre-emption right was known. One should never rely on verbal statements from a seller; that is not a new insight. In this respect, I see here rather a faulty advice to the buyer.

However, this is not about asserting the registered pre-emption right. If the holder of the pre-emption right were to assert their right, this would not only be justified but also morally unobjectionable. The third option – waiving the pre-emption right in exchange for a discount payment (or as it used to be called in the church "indulgence trade") – is, however, morally questionable. It is doubtful whether he actually has an interest in the acquisition or even the (financial) means to do so. Obviously, the holder of the pre-emption right just wants to make a killing from it.

Good evening,

Frank has rightly recognized it, it is - in any case - morally - questionable; in private land sales I had not known this before.

If our clients wait it out, time passes; time which they - after years of searching for a suitable plot - no longer want to invest. And - an offer, with known content, is indeed annoying, but not punishable; the pre-emptive right holder has the means to turn his announcement into reality.

Current status: the land seller participates financially in the immoral offer of her relative.

Rhenish greetings from the road

Those who have a lot of money have a very very very big EGO. It’s no longer about the money but about stroking the EGO of how great they managed to enforce it again. It’s like a game. We are all not do-gooders and live in prosperity.

Such nonsense with money, contracts, broken contracts, boundaries and 2 alpha animals who are entrepreneurs I see every day with my neighbors. There is suing, inciting, and it’s no longer about the money anyway. Welcome to prosperity

The third option - waiving the right of first refusal in exchange for a payment (or as it was called earlier in the church "indulgence trade") - is morally questionable. It is doubtful to what extent he actually has an interest in the purchase or even the (financial) means to do so. Clearly, the holder of the right of first refusal just wants to make a golden nose out of it.

The right of first refusal has value - the entitled party could buy it themselves if they wanted to (according to the OP), so I see no problems in the entitled party’s behavior. Maybe the seller did not want to sell to the relative or demanded more than now, or maybe the entitled party just wants to get even, or whatever, we don’t know the background. This moralizing is silly. For me, the advisory service is rather inadequate here.

I would find it very exciting to risk it and see if the person actually buys now.