Talk:Right of first refusal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the difference between first right of refusal and right of first refusal? It confused me.

The capital letter words in the text ought to be removed.

This article needs to be reviewed, for an apropiate format and revised for any incorrect information.

El Basto 14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I fixed some grammatical problems as well as some of the many tone-related problems; however, there is still so much work to be done. I think that the article could use a complete rewrite by somebody who knows more about this topic. Wikipediarules2221 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just gave it a shot. However, it still needs work. It's late at night and I'm a little too sleepy to tell how clear I'm being. Also note that this is written from the point of view of American law and business practices. I used real estate ROFR as an example because that's somewhat simpler. Not sure if other English-speaking nations have comparable terminology conventions. Also in some fields (publishing, entertainment) business transactions like ROFR are highly dependent on norms within the industry whereas in other fields (corporate joint ventures, real estate) it has to go on the written page or it's not part of the deal. Wikidemo 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Someone has changed the names in my example (I was trying to be multicultural and nonsexist) to African-American names. That works just fine. If Shaquana, DeShawn, and Chantal want to grant each other rights of first refusal that works too. Why not? I hope no racial disparagement was intended. It seems innocent enough. Wikidemo 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC

The names are way too difficult and long. Nothing against African-American names, but two and three syllable names are just unneeded to make a point. I actually confused Shaquana and Chantal the first time through. Abe, Bo, and Carl are short, racially indifferent names that are easy to discriminate between.

Agreed. Thanks. Wikidemo 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right of First Refusal

What if you have entered into an agreement purchaseing a tract of ground and a first right of refusal on the adjoining tract and then, after the agreement, the seller sells the adjoining tract without giving you the right of first refusal. This is the reason the person purchased the first tract. It has been decided in court that this is the breach of contract. Damages have to be proved determining what the purchased paid for the right of first refusal.

pumpkin

I'm not sure what that's all about. If you're looking for legal advice you might need a lawyer. But that does get to an interesting issue, which is that a right of first refusal is often a contract right, not an interest in real estate that actually part of the title. So a breach of the right of first refusal when the seller fails to give it to you usually doesn't give you a specific right to undo the transaction and redo it in your favor, but rather a cause for economic damages, which can be hard to prove. I'll add that comment if I see a good place. Wikidemo 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)