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

We are talking here about a plot of land with ~ 255 euros/sqm with good connections to Cologne/Düsseldorf. So it is quite possible that a higher price could be achieved here. Pure speculation, as we do not know the exact circumstances. However, if one seriously wants to sell, one inquires carefully beforehand. Possibly the sellers were also poorly advised. In any case, all this is annoying for the buyers, especially since comparable plots will be scarce and this can set one back several good years on the way to owning a home.

Accusation without any claim to accuracy.

Only in this way can the further reaction of the person who conducted the contract negotiation be explained – or the construction expert is just making things up. This is not unusual in inheritance communities either, having experienced it several times in various constellations.

True. Partly. The connection lies in the different perception of a felt (moral) obligation. It knows its limits where the banks "can afford it" or "deserve it." When it comes to one’s own interests, it then becomes an immoral act.

An accusation without any claim to accuracy. Ok, jokes aside, I still cannot see any parallel here, but maybe I am just missing a synapse at the moment.

Of course. And moreover not offensive at all. It’s 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 reserved buyers. That’s just how it is, every thing has its value. It is determined by what another is willing to pay for it. For property, however (since it is not fungible), only a single interested party is needed.

At that point, I wanted to address something else, namely that these 5% are also not legally secure. This is a situation without any security for implementation; at the next notary appointment, the next surprise might come up. My trust would be gone or I would (after consulting my lawyer) pay the agreed purchase price, insist on implementation and actually let the exercising party proceed or put them under pressure. If they don’t proceed, I buy at the agreed price. If they play their card, I’d be out. The real estate transfer tax also eats up the 5%, which, as far as I know, cannot be avoided; moreover, the owner risks being classified as a commercial real estate dealer for tax purposes, meaning he should not develop and sell too many properties in self-development.

I think I would just let it come to that, after all, the seller side has also invested quite a bit of time.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

P.S.: You can also look at it from another perspective: imagine you are in an inheritance community with 4 siblings, all equally involved in the property. One negotiates with a buyer until the contract/notary appointment, another sibling is – pro forma – granted a right of first refusal. And then actually exercises it because they have the financial means, thus paying out the siblings (possibly against their will, but based on their gullibility) and subsequently solely taking the profit from the further (value) development of the property ... I believe not all involved would find that very funny...

Good morning,

a lively discussion on the topic has developed here

I may be naive – undeniably so when it comes to legal matters – but it’s not about who pulled which strings in the background before the notarized purchase contract. From my point of view, this is completely irrelevant, even if the seller’s price was perhaps set higher before.

On the one hand, there is a signed notary contract with an amount "x" as the agreed purchase price for a 1,400 sqm plot of land, between the persons "v" + "k". On the other hand, a registered right of first refusal for a person "xy".

If person "xy" now plays the card of right of first refusal, that is certainly annoying for the party "k", but completely legitimate; it can happen. Even if the party "xy" immediately demanded monetary compensation for exercising this right, I would see it as a normal business transaction; the property would simply become more expensive and it would also be annoying for party "k"; but every business has its price.

However, in the real story I have told you, there is no understandable decision by "xy". Instead of choosing "play card or compensation," the party entitled to the right of first refusal pulls an alternative "c" out of the hat. The question of why they act this way has not yet been answered.

In my understanding, the party "k" also has no reason to care what "xy" does with the property if they want to exercise their right of first refusal; I would like to remind you that "xy" is solvent. So why the written offer of the 3 options to party "k"? I maintain that it is primarily an immoral offer. A good deal is always when all parties have to give up a little. Currently, 2 out of three are rather being plucked.

Contrary to voki’s opinion, I also do not believe that a purchase as an investment property will pay off for "xy"; at least not if _only_ a complete duplex house is built and subsequently rented or sold (a development with multi-storey apartments is, because of the location of the property, not permissible). The expected return on rental is uninteresting; upon sale after completion of the construction project, in my opinion, it is a zero-sum game. The latter because the entire project including all costs would amount to around one million euros. These days a lot is possible in the housing sector, but performing miracles definitely is not. I will not name the exact location of the property – in this particular case it is neither in Oberkassel, Stockum, Wittlaer, nor Kaiserswerth, where it _might_ still be worthwhile if "xy" kept the _long-term_ capital investment in focus.

Rhenish greetings

.... or the construction expert just makes things up.

Of course not.

Rhenish greetings

Where is the problem now, this is hardcore capitalism with the aim of profit maximization.

Tease interested parties and then pull out, every car dealer, every kitchen studio, every furniture store does that... the list can be extended endlessly

Wow, I find it almost cheeky to compare that.

It would be comparable if you buy a car at a dealership and somewhere deep in the contract it states that the manufacturer can contact you up to a month later and charge an additional fee. Or if you have a childcare contract with the kindergarten, but it is hidden in there that the caregivers may charge fees for handing over the child. I hardly believe that you would see that as capitalism in that situation, but rather as a rip-off.