Commercial Landlord-Tenant—Specific Performance of Right of First Refusal (ROFR)—A ROFR Is an Exception to the General Rule That Covenants of a Lease Are Extended Into a Month-to-Month Tenancy
Plaintiff tenants commenced an action for specific performance of a right of first refusal (ROFR), which was contained in a lease which had been executed in 2011. The lease was for a 12-month period. Upon expiration of the lease, the plaintiffs “continued to occupy the premises pursuant to a month-to-month agreement.” In May 2016, the plaintiffs learned that the owner was “in contract to sell the premises, and demanded that they be given the right to exercise the [ROFR].” The owner asserted that the ROFR had expired when the lease ended in 2012.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
