Posted by John (Rome) on January 29, 2002 at 15:58:41:
for replying…I’m honoured.
yes, it would stand to reason that one could word it one way or the other (as with all contracts within the boundaries of the existing laws), however I intended what the most common outcome sought is and I believe it to be the exclusive option - insofar as it gives the Option holder (T/B) the power to decide when to “roll the dice”…whereas with a first right of refusal the seller decides when the game commences…possibly in a moment the t/b isn’t in a condition to play…and loses.
I already posted this question on the main board but someone suggested to do so here so here it is…
If one has an option on a property does that mean a) he has first right of refusal if the seller decides to sell during the option period or b) that the seller CANNOT for whatever reason put the property up for sale during the option period…if so how would you word it in a contract…
I always thought it was B)…but a seller just asked me…saying he would prefer first right of refusal…(I didn’t talk about option consideration - planning on $100…) so I can’t argue that I wouldn’t want to buy a simple first right of refusal for X,XXX dollars…
Depends on how the option is written. An exclusive option to purchase usually is written so that only the optionee can exercise the option during the option period. However, a “right of first refusal option” could be written so that the option can only exercised IF the seller decides to offer the property for sale.