Question from a reader:
I am currently studying for a real estate qualification. I have a question regarding the explanation of answers in commercially available past exam questions, and I would like your help. In Question A, it states that a special provision stating “the lease agreement terminates upon the death of the lessor” is invalid in a fixed-term building lease
agreement. The answer is “incorrect,” indicating that a fixed-term building lease agreement must have a specified duration. On the other hand, Question B also states that the same special provision is invalid, but the answer is “incorrect,” indicating that provisions unfavorable to the lessee are not permitted. I believe the explanation for Question A is not wrong, but why is it not the same as the explanation for Question B? Is there a difference between the lessor and the lessee? It would be great if I could contact the publisher, but it seems they only accept corrections of answers. I would appreciate the opinions of anyone knowledgeable on this matter. Thank you.

Considerations on Special Provisions in the Real Estate Industry: Response to the Question

The question from someone studying for a real estate qualification is indeed intriguing. In particular, the inquiry about the validity of special provisions regarding fixed-term building lease agreements is a theme that cannot be avoided when studying law. As someone majoring in psychology, I would like to consider this issue from the intersection of law and psychology.

Basics of Fixed-Term Building Lease Agreements

First, let’s review the fixed-term building lease agreement briefly. This contract is a lease agreement with a specified duration. For example, a one-year contract falls under this category. This is an important point; if the duration is not clear, the contract cannot be established. If the lessor dies during the contract period, what happens to the contract? This is the core of the questioner’s inquiry.

Differences Between Question A and Question B

Now, the questioner is puzzled by the fact that the answers to Question A and Question B do not have the same explanation. In Question A, the special provision stating “the lease agreement terminates upon the death of the lessor” is deemed invalid, but the answer is “incorrect.” Meanwhile, in Question B, a similar provision is also deemed invalid, yet the answer is “incorrect.” The crucial point here is the positions of the “lessor” and “lessee.” The law considers how the content of special provisions affects the lessee or lessor. In particular, provisions that are unfavorable to the lessee may be deemed invalid. In other words, if a special provision brings disadvantage to the lessee, the law may consider it invalid.

What Are the Differences Between the Lessor and Lessee?

So, why is there a different interpretation for the lessor and lessee? This is because the law is based on the principle that contracts are formed on an equal footing. Even if the lessor dies, it would be a significant disadvantage for the lessee if the contract were to terminate suddenly. Therefore, such a special provision is deemed invalid. On the other hand, the termination of the contract due to the lessor’s death does not necessarily disadvantage the lessee. If the special provision is valid, it is also possible for the lessee to enter into a new contract with the lessor’s heirs. Here lies the balance that the law seeks.

Understanding Contracts from a Psychological Perspective

At this point, let’s add a psychological perspective. A contract is not just a legal document. It reflects the trust and expectations of the parties involved. When entering into a contract, mutual understanding and trust are crucial, and the content of special provisions is part of that. For example, if there is a special provision stating “the lease agreement terminates upon the death of the lessor,” the lessee will always be filled with anxiety. This can become a mental burden and potentially deteriorate the contractual relationship. Through my part-time work at a judicial scrivener’s office, I have seen many people struggling with such contractual issues. Sometimes, even a trivial special provision can have a significant impact on the parties’ minds. From such experiences, I realize that the law is not merely a regulation but a means to protect human relationships.

Conclusion

Returning to the questioner’s inquiry, the reason the answers to Question A and Question B differ is due to the differences in the positions of the “lessor” and “lessee.” The law considers the meaning and impact of contracts and ensures that neither party suffers disadvantage. In particular, special provisions unfavorable to the lessee are often deemed invalid. Understanding this point will lead to a deeper comprehension in future real estate qualification exams. Such issues are points where one may stumble during the learning process, but they also present opportunities for deeper understanding. Moreover, by adopting not only a legal perspective but also a psychological one, one’s understanding of contracts can be further enriched. I wish to continue contemplating at the intersection of law and psychology.