- Original Poster
- #1
Hi there
I instructed my solicitor to report on a lease and make recommendations. One of his concerns is that due to me being personally liable under the terms of the lease, the indemnity clause is much too broad in terms of how it might be applied. He suggested I resist the clause as much as possible but in a worst case scenario, have it restricted to breach of covenant.
However, the solicitor representing the landlord won't budge. They're claiming it's boilerplate, wouldn't generally be negotiated and needs to stay in its current form.
Here's the section of the provision we have issue with:
"...arising from any breach of any tenant covenants in this lease, or any act or omission of the Tenant, any undertenant or their respective workers, contractors or agents or any other person on the Property or the Common Parts with the actual or implied authority of any of them."
The lease relates to property with a low rental value and the idea that I'd risk my assets on a clause as broad as the above for a few hundred square feet of office space seems like madness to me. I suggested that if this catch-all provision is standard, we mirror it whereby I'd be indemnified against any "act or omission" by the landlord, but they're not interested and I'm ready to walk away having already paid their fees and my own.
Is signing a lease with this provision intact definitely a bad move? My solicitor is certainly advising against, but I have considered him to be overly cautious in the past so it'd be good to get some other viewpoints on this.
Thanks for any advice or insight offered. It's appreciated.
I instructed my solicitor to report on a lease and make recommendations. One of his concerns is that due to me being personally liable under the terms of the lease, the indemnity clause is much too broad in terms of how it might be applied. He suggested I resist the clause as much as possible but in a worst case scenario, have it restricted to breach of covenant.
However, the solicitor representing the landlord won't budge. They're claiming it's boilerplate, wouldn't generally be negotiated and needs to stay in its current form.
Here's the section of the provision we have issue with:
"...arising from any breach of any tenant covenants in this lease, or any act or omission of the Tenant, any undertenant or their respective workers, contractors or agents or any other person on the Property or the Common Parts with the actual or implied authority of any of them."
The lease relates to property with a low rental value and the idea that I'd risk my assets on a clause as broad as the above for a few hundred square feet of office space seems like madness to me. I suggested that if this catch-all provision is standard, we mirror it whereby I'd be indemnified against any "act or omission" by the landlord, but they're not interested and I'm ready to walk away having already paid their fees and my own.
Is signing a lease with this provision intact definitely a bad move? My solicitor is certainly advising against, but I have considered him to be overly cautious in the past so it'd be good to get some other viewpoints on this.
Thanks for any advice or insight offered. It's appreciated.
