Commercial Profit

Rescission of the lease due to fraudulent misrepresentation by the landlord in the commercial space leases by lawyer Alexander Bredereck, lawyer for rental and property law in Berlin for many years we are working especially in the emphasis on labour and tenancy law as lawyers. We deepen this experience through regular training and constant technical exchange. So we can already settle possible points of contention when designing your contracts and your terms and conditions in its favour. A landlord rents out an object to use as an Office and after hiring, turns out that he has no permit for such use, the tenant may challenge the lease due to fraudulent misrepresentation (BGH, judgment of the 6.8.2008, AZ.) XII ZR 67/06). For the first time, the Federal Court in this decision clarifies that the contestation is possible even after delivery of the leased property. Here, the tenant owes a compensation for the duration of the use. This is calculated according to the local rent for comparable Objects. Tenant Tip: after use of the leased property, determine that you were fraudulently misled with regard to individual properties of the rental object from the landlord, is to check whether the tenancy may be terminated not without notice.

After the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, you should also check in any case, if not (if necessary in addition) a challenge due to fraudulent misrepresentation is explained. The advantage is that a radical challenge due up to the date of termination of the contract not the contractually agreed rent, but the circumstances substantially lower local comparison rent. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander polymath and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor Berlin-Mitte

A landlord rents rescission of the lease due to fraudulent misrepresentation by the lessor in the leasing of commercial space an object to use as an Office and after hiring, turns out that he has no permit for such use, the tenant challenging the lease due to fraudulent misrepresentation (BGH, judgment of the 6.8.2008, AZ.) XII ZR 67/06). For the first time, the Federal Court in this decision clarifies that the contestation is possible even after delivery of the leased property. Here, the tenant owes a compensation for the duration of the use. This is calculated according to the local rent for similar objects. Tip lessee to use the leased determine that you were fraudulently deceived with regard to individual properties of the object of lease from the landlord, is to check whether the tenancy may be terminated not without notice.

After the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, you should also check in any case, if not (if necessary in addition) a challenge due to fraudulent misrepresentation is explained. The advantage is that when one radical challenge until at the time of the termination of the contract, not the contractually agreed rent, but the circumstances substantially lower local comparison rent is due. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander polymath and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor Berlin-Mitte

Waldorf of Frommer on behalf of Constantin film distribution GmbH for the film work ‘ 3096 days ‘ so-called leader of the industrial firms that warn in the Internet copyright violations, because Internet users illegally have down – / uploaded music works in so-called file-sharing is the watchdog firm Waldorf of Frommer. Typically, a horrendous payment of damages and legal costs amounting to at least 1.028,00 and the Declaration of a punitive injunctive relief associated with such a warning. Not every warning is actually legitimate. Not every warning is indeed justified. “If you so a such warning the watchdog firm Waldorf of Frommer on behalf of Constantin film distribution GmbH for the cinematographic 3096 days” have received, then expire you carefully note the extremely short deadline not to panic, and at an early stage consult a qualified lawyer for copyright. Better still, a specialist for file sharing. Sign nothing and pay anything before you are not using a specialized attorney for copyright have spoken.

Use any so-called modified cease and desist from the Internet. You don’t know if the cease and desist in the right places has been modified correctly. Must be this not you reckon that you have to pay in the next 30 years at the next warning up to 5,000.00 because you accidentally could have submitted an acknowledgement of guilt. This is to avoid it all urgent. The amount of money of 1.028,00 is bad enough. The consequential damage worse, when one turns not at an early stage to a qualified attorney for copyright. Georg Schafer Attorney