Strategy meeting house purchase or "How far should I go?"

Therefore, I would advise clarifying why, how, and for what reason the right of first refusal is in place. As an acknowledged expert, you surely know that such an entry also costs a few euros and is not there for fun. We don't know the background, so it requires research.

Who cares about the background? What do they really change? Please let us share in your wisdom. If the beneficiary really had an interest, the seller wouldn’t have to go through the stress of a sale at all. Sure, there are various reasons for a right of first refusal; 98% of the time, it is registered by the previous owner for various reasons. It costs about €550 for the sale price in question – in the past, with a lower value, maybe €150 or less. So peanuts for such an investment.

I would clarify that beforehand to avoid an unpleasant surprise.

And as always, you are at a loss for a concrete answer or further explanations of your statements. But that's clear when you have no idea.

Yes, but Evolith's parents do that too. Check it out:

Yes, they actually do that as well, but we can look at what a neighboring house (not so well equipped) was sold for. Since the sale of the "old" house is only planned in 2 years, I am more a fan of conservative calculations. But ultimately, the value of the house is enough to fully pay off the other one in 2 years.

It's not that irrelevant because it affects purchasing power.

Crystal ball knowledge? The offer of €350,000 is specifically from your parents' bank for this property themselves?!
It could look different for everyone.

In fact, those two are with our financial broker and not with just one bank. He did a rather general calculation (at least I trust him on that). In other words, almost all banks will end up somewhere in that price range. Of course, that says nothing about the fundamental creditworthiness. My parents could also get a significantly higher loan, but they don’t really want to exhaust that.

Yes, they really want to have the house. But not at all costs.

Regarding the right of first refusal: It is a large company here in our area. I suspect these were originally reclamation plots of this company (like ours too), and the company had itself registered there pro forma. It is even still listed with the old name that hardly anyone knows anymore.
My parents as buyers actually have no risk once the purchase is completed. But the seller could be sued for damages if the company decides to push for it. The party holding the right of first refusal is (actually) to be informed about the transaction and the conditions before the sale.

And as always, you are at a loss for a concrete answer or further explanations of your statements.

Why is that?

If I divide a large property and sell part of it to a friendly buyer who will then be my neighbor, I have a right of first refusal registered for a later sale. For example, if there is a divorce and the property is sold again by the former friendly neighbor, then I have the option to buy it back. Why?

Because if I sell it again, I can choose the new neighbor. Or because my children need a property next to me. Or, or, or.

Was that concrete enough now?

The person with the right of first refusal is (actually) to be informed about the transaction and the conditions before the sale.

And if the person with the right of first refusal does not then make use of it, the right of first refusal is not further harmed. It is not an exclusive right to sell. Then it is simply sold to the interested buyer.

the possibility to buy it back.

Yes, but first you have to finance the purchase price. Pay real estate transfer tax. Pay for the mortgage deed registration. Pay the notary. Resell. You're making a great deal with that...

Your line of thinking is that of a layperson who doesn't think things through.

Or because my children need a plot of land next to me. Or, or, or.

Was that concrete enough now?

No, we're talking about a developed plot of land. So originally about €30-35k incidental acquisition costs. The neighbor does that? Please be specific and don't ramble. I already understand what a right of first refusal is for. But I also understand how rarely it is exercised, especially with older houses.
Within the family, that happens occasionally, but rarely with third parties. Here, with a small plot, I also don't see the risk that a company suddenly decides to put up a six-story building there. Such scenarios practically do not occur in standard residential areas since floor area ratio/site coverage ratio, development plans, and §34 oppose that.

The right of first refusal carries no risk. Either the entitled party has too much money and buys, or they don't. That's it.

Somehow the debate misses the point.
The fact is, the right of first refusal gives the beneficiary the opportunity to step into a concluded purchase contract. Period.
Whether that is likely is another matter... but it is possible.

And in case of doubt, the interested party could definitely suffer damage unless the bank cancels the concluded credit agreement free of charge.
Apart from the great disappointment.

What harm is there in having the beneficiary confirm the waiver of the right of first refusal in writing? It should be absolutely no problem if there is indeed no interest.