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

For me, the consulting service here is rather inadequate.

In case I am supposed to be meant: that shoe does not fit me! Although I was asked about "Hölzchen + Stöckchen", our customers only signed the notarized contract after consulting their lawyer.

Rhineland greetings

In case I am meant: this shoe does not fit me!

You don't have to either, Bauexperte. It was written in black and white in the contract, wasn't it, just to fill another page? Maybe you can remember our purchase, I am overly cautious about these matters and only push when we are registered in the land register, before that a thousand things can happen that could still cause such a contract to fail.

The buyers probably knew about the theoretical risk... I would probably have planned similarly and put this right of first refusal in the category municipality, state.

I find it quite astonishing that many of you would invoke the right of withdrawal for incompletely / allegedly unclearly (a single wrong word is enough) completed withdrawal instructions without any moral hesitation, thus freeing yourselves from the "too high" interest rate with full actual knowledge of the contractual agreements entered into and refinancing more cheaply.

The very same individuals sometimes play the morality card here for someone who no longer has a right that is due to him and therefore may expect appropriate compensation for this waiver of rights.

He could exercise the right of first refusal, develop the property, and then sell the units and (at least in the current market situation) quite certainly sell them at a profit to the highest bidders.

It's a bit strange how some people think here.

I find it quite astonishing that many of you would invoke the right of withdrawal without any moral hesitation in cases of incomplete / allegedly unclear (a single wrong word is enough) withdrawal instructions, thus freeing yourselves here with full actual knowledge of the concluded contractual arrangements from the "too high" interest rate and entering into a cheaper new agreement.

The sometimes same people here play the morality card for someone who no longer has a right to which he is entitled, and who may therefore expect appropriate compensation for this waiver of rights.

He could exercise the pre-emptive right, build on the property, and then sell the units and (at least in the current market situation) quite certainly sell to the highest bidders with a profit.

It's a bit strange how some people think here.

we are all do-gooders, unless it concerns my wallet

The situation is - if I understand/reproduce it correctly - somewhat different: the sellers were obviously not in agreement about the purchase price, yet one (!) person was sent ahead to conduct the negotiations and a right of first refusal in favor of another person was included in the purchase contract, about which there is - admittedly oral - statement that it would only be a formality.

The formality then suddenly turned into 5% of the purchase price, in which the family-internally fronted person now apparently wants to participate out of moral obligation, meaning: they are waiving part of their profit.

This has very little to do with automated and 100-times checked cancellation instructions.

Moreover, the right of first refusal itself cannot be capitalized at all. The contract does not state that the price automatically increases by 5% when it is exercised or that the clause can be deleted at that price.

The one who exercises the right of first refusal could also demand 10% or 20%, that is completely arbitrary and ultimately a balancing of the pain threshold.

Best regards Dirk Grafe

and a right of first refusal in favor of another person was incorporated into the purchase contract

Keep in mind: someone negotiated a right of first refusal. Buyers accepted this and thus knew that the sale might succeed, but did not necessarily have to succeed.

that it was only a formality

Gullibility.

family-internal front person

An accusation without any claim to accuracy.

This has very little to do with automated and 100-times checked revocation instructions.

True. Partly. The connection lies in the different perception of felt (moral) obligation. This reaches its limits where banks "can afford it" or "have earned it." When it comes to one’s own assets, it then turns into an immoral act.

The one exercising the right of first refusal could also demand 10% or 20%, that is completely arbitrary and ultimately a balancing of the pain threshold.

Self-evident. And moreover, not objectionable at all. It is about the loss in case of non-exercise of the right of first refusal and the valuation of what the purchase of the property is worth to the holders of the reservation. That’s just how it is, every thing has its value. It is determined by what another is willing to pay for it. With property, however (not fungible), there needs to be only one interested party.

I find nothing dishonorable about it at all. In the current market situation, the seller could simply have set a higher price and would have sold the property without this “stunt,” assuming that agreement.

It becomes more expensive for the reservation holders, unless they gamble and see if the holder of the reservation acts foolishly when having to exercise it. Possibly he might reconsider, but maybe not.