Therefore, regardless of the name or qualification of the contract, the legal relationship between the owner and the service provider in the co-working area can be considered a lease agreement. Such a relationship allows characteristics for the co-working area service provider to use a third party and benefit from rental ownership, provided the owner has given written consent in this regard. Click here to see our webinar on “Dilapidations and forfeiture in commercial rentals.” In its case law4, the High Court of Appeals finds that a subtenant who terminates a sublease contract before its term by terminating the main tenancy agreement is responsible for the harm suffered by the user. The High Court of Appeals also states that liability in the event of injury will be incurred regardless of intent to harm the user. On the other hand, it should also be noted that if the co-working area service provider is not the party that terminated the main lease; it is not responsible for the damage suffered by the user as a result of the termination of the contract. Despite theoretical discussions among scholars, the user is not even obliged to take further action in this regard, as soon as the main tenancy agreement between the owner and the co-work service provider, as is the standard practice of the High Court of Appeals. The contract is considered “terminated” on the date of termination of the main tenancy agreement between the owner and the service provider in the co-working area. However, in order to avoid future conflicts, it is advisable to send a written notification to the sector co-working service provider, which relates to the termination of the sublease contract due to the termination of the main tenancy agreement between the owner and the co-work service provider. This communication could also be used as a means of transmitting claims of the magnitude of which is explained below. If the parties do not renegotiate the terms of the contract, perhaps to avoid possible legal scenarios, it is up to the Court to ascertain, in each specific case, whether the remedies proposed in this document are applicable and to what extent.
In particular, the duration of restrictive measures is expected to have a significant impact on the tenant`s right to request termination of the contract. Williams v. 4545 East Coast LLC, No. 713984/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. 2020) (the plaintiff`s tenant moved from California to Long Island City and entered into a lease with the defendant`s landlord for an apartment on March 2, 2020. The COVID 19 pandemic “had the effect of frustrated the lease” because the complainants` tenants “do not have the capacity to use the deemic premise or generate revenue from obvious health and safety concerns.” In addition to the claims to impossibility and opportunity, the tenant asks for a reform of the tenancy agreement for an “implicit force majeure clause” and a retraction clause on the basis of this tacit clause.) (25.08.2020 Complaint) (10.09.2020 Response with counter-claims) If a lack of staff or equipment prevented a lessor from providing certain services, it would depend on whether the omission of a lessor constitutes a breach of the lease agreement, if the lease contains some reservation for the circumstances in which a lessor is prevented from fulfilling its obligations due to circumstances beyond its control.