SIGN UP FOR MY MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
Option or Illusion? When Lease Extension Options Fail
An “option” to extend the lease term may turn out not to be an option at all. One of the most common and costly drafting mistakes in commercial leases is deceptively simple. The lease grants the tenant an option to extend but fails to state the amount of the rent for the extension term. What looks like flexibility or an item for the parties to negotiate when the time comes often turns into a fatal flaw. If the rent, or an ascertainable standard for the rent is not specified, the option may be unenforceable because it lacks an essential term.
Courts draw a clear line between an enforceable option and an unenforceable “agreement to agree.” An option must provide an ascertainable standard that allows rent to be determined by the judge (if necessary) without further negotiation by the parties. If the clause depends on the parties reaching a future agreement, it is not an option at all. It is simply an invitation to negotiate, which either side is free to reject.
Importantly, the law does not require that rent be stated as a fixed number. It is enough if the lease provides an ascertainable standard. A common example is “fair market value” or “fair market rent.” In Goodwest Rubber Corp. v. Munoz, the court upheld an option that used “fair market value” as the price, explaining that it was sufficiently definite because it gave the court a framework to determine price without any further agreement by the parties. Courts determine fair market value routinely by relying on appraisals, etc. It is a recognized and workable standard.
But even “fair market value” can be drafted into unenforceability. If the lease conditions the determination of fair market rent on the parties’ future agreement, such as stating that rent will be set at fair market value “as agreed by the parties,” then the clause may become unenforceable. In that situation, the parties have transformed fair market value from an objective standard into a requirement for future agreement. The result is the same as if the lease had said “rent to be agreed upon.” The option fails because it lacks an ascertainable standard.
This distinction is subtle but critical. A clause that says rent “shall be agreed” invites failure. A clause that sets rent at fair market value and merely allows the parties to attempt to agree is far more likely to be enforced. The difference between a standard and a condition of agreement is often outcome determinative.
Even where a lease properly uses “fair market rent,” problems can arise when the term is left undefined. In practice, disputes often arise over what to consider to determine the fair market rent. Parties and their experts may disagree over which transactions qualify as comparable, how to treat concessions such as free rent or tenant improvement allowances, whether operating expenses should be normalized, and what assumptions should be made about the tenant’s credit, use, and lease term. At that point, the dispute shifts from the number itself to the methodology used to reach it.
For that reason, a well-drafted extension option does not just invoke fair market rent. It defines how to determine it. Sophisticated provisions require valuators to consider the full economic substance of comparable transactions, including not only stated rent rates but also rent abatements, periodic increases, tenant improvement allowances, operating expenses, taxes, insurance, building services, and the length of the lease term. They also require that the analysis reflect an arm’s-length transaction for comparable space, taking into account location, size, condition, visibility, and access, and assuming a tenant of similar financial strength and intended use.
Equally important are the exclusions and adjustments built into the clause. By excluding from the pool of comparable transactions subleases, assignments, renewals, related-party transactions, and leases subject to special rights or encumbrances, the parties prevent distortion from non-market deals. By accounting for tenant-funded improvements, while disallowing reductions based on brokerage commission savings or tenant-caused deferred maintenance, the clause ensures that the result reflects true market conditions rather than artifacts of the existing relationship. These further elaborations transform “fair market rent” from a label into a methodology.
The importance of clarity is illustrated by California National Bank v. Woodbridge Plaza, where the lease tied renewal rent to the “then prevailing rate,” with a cap based on another tenant. When that tenant no longer existed, the parties litigated what the clause meant. The court ultimately imposed a fair market standard based on comparable uses, relying on expert testimony to determine rent. The dispute underscores a recurring theme. When the lease does not clearly define the standard, the parties effectively leave the outcome to a court.
The takeaway is straightforward. A simple reference to fair market rent may be enough to make an option enforceable, but enforceable is not the same as workable. If the goal is to create an option that actually functions, the lease must do more. It must provide an ascertainable standard, avoid conditioning that standard on future agreement, and define the methodology for applying it. Otherwise, what appears to be an option is not an option at all. It is a negotiation clause, one that fails precisely when it is needed most.