Blog » 3 THINGS A LESSOR IN HUNGARY MUST KNOW ABOUT LESSEES’ INVESTMENTS
3 THINGS A LESSOR IN HUNGARY MUST KNOW ABOUT LESSEES’ INVESTMENTS
20 March 2019
In case of leasing an office, warehouse or other industrial property, lessees often make significant investments to the premises, which can easily result in a dispute when the contract is terminated. From our article, you can learn what should you to take into account as a lessor in relation to investments made by lessees.
Good contract = less trouble
It is not a secret that having a well drafted, detailed contract is the key to a secure legal relationship. It might seem obvious, but many lessor fail to foresee its importance. If you want to avoid unpleasant litigations, you better forget oral agreements and two page “beer mat” contracts.
Some save on legal work, saying "the laws settle the matters anyway". Guess which one will be simpler and more effective during a demonstration? Presenting your contract that regulates the issue in black and white, or if you refer to a general rule and hope that the judge is on the same page with you. This risk is so significant in itself, that you can see that the best safeguard for the lessor is a good contract.
Prevent the problem
I guess you would not be pleased, as a lessor, to pay lessee millions for an investment which increases the value of the premises on paper, but useless for you in practice.
The safest solution is to link lessee investments to your prior approval and to exclude lessee from claiming any reimbursement for the investments he made to the premises. In fact, there is no obstacle to do so, since the principle of “contractual freedom” allows the parties to freely determine the content of the contract.
In practice, the above means that, with a few exceptions, parties may depart from the provisions of both the Civil Code and the “Housing Act”, allowing you to conclude a contract with favorable terms.
Alongside the costs, it is recommended to exclude reimbursement for possible enrichment, as in a Hungarian judicial decision, despite the exclusion of the reimbursement of costs, the court ordered the lessor to reimburse unjust enrichment, because the investment made by the lessee increased the value of the property.
The most obvious solution is to completely exclude lessee investment, as it is completely legal and prevents the problem from happening. If the investment becomes necessary later, the parties can enter into a separate agreement at any time.
If the investment has already been made
What are the possibilities of the lessor, if the investment has already been made and the reimbursement of the costs has not been excluded? In such a case, several factors influence how and to what extent the lessor may be obliged to reimburse the investment.
If the investment is necessary for the preservation of the premises or for the use in conformity with the contract, as the performance of these tasks is the responsibility of the lessor, the lessor is obliged to reimburse the costs to the lessee if the works are performed by the latter.
If the investment does not fall into the above category, (for example it is needed for the lessee's activity), there may be two situations:
a) investments approved in advance
In case the parties have negotiated that the approved investment should be carried out by the lessee, the performance of the works legally can be considered as an agency contract. In this case, at the end of the works, the lessee may ask the lessor to reimburse the costs.
b) Investment without prior consultation
If the lessee failed to inform the lessor about the work, or the lessor did not want the realization of the investment, we can talk about impromptu (i.e. unauthorized) agency. In this case, the lessee may, in accordance with the rules of unjust enrichment, request the lessor to reimburse the financial advantage he received through the investment made by the lessee.
We highlight two aspects, considering Hungarian judicial practice:
- Reimbursement may only be due after the lessee has left the premises, so the lessor can lease it to another tenant.
- The amount of compensation is different from the cost of the investment. The court pointed out that a costly investment does not necessarily result in financial advantage for the lessor, for example, if it is unable to lease the premises at a higher rent.
In the case of a lease relationship, the most important safeguard of the lessor is a detailed contract that adequately protects its interests. Hungarian law allows you to freely determine most of the parts of the contract and to depart from the legal provisions, so we recommend that you exclude reimbursement of investments made by the lessee. To ensure that the law effectively protects your interests as a lessor, we strongly advise you to involve a lawyer experienced in rental contracts during the process.
CAN THE EMPLOYER EXPAND THE EMPLOYEES’ DUTIES WITHOUT CHANGING THE JOB DESCRIPTION IN HUNGARY?
The position and tasks of the employee are one of the key elements of the employment contract and are typically recorded in the job description. It is often a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employer can unilaterally modify the job description at all, and if so, to what extent. In a recent court decision, a Hungarian appellate court addressed the above question in a situation where the employer supplemented the employee's tasks with new tasks similar to his existing tasks. In this article, we analyse the recent decision on this matter.Read more »
CAN A HARSH FACEBOOK COMMENT BE A LAWFUL GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY?
Social media platforms significantly changed the ways how people express their opinions: sharing views became easier than ever. On the one hand, this is positive, but on the other hand, it is also dangerous in the employment context, as the employee's opinion may be prejudicial to the employer's interests. A recent decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court gives answer to the question whether the employer can dismiss the employee for expressing his opinion on Facebook.Read more »
NEW EU – US DATA PRIVACY FRAMEWORK - SIMPLIFIED DATA TRANSFER TO THE US
With the Schrems II judgment, which invalidated the Privacy Shield, the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) make it more difficult to comply with the GDPR for companies transferring personal data from the EU to the US. However, the new EU-US Data Privacy Framework (or “Framework”) adopted on 10 July aims to put an end to this situation. But how does the Framework make data transfers between the EU and US easier? In this short article, we explain the basics of the new Framework and answer the above question.Read more »