Search
Contact
02.09.2016 | KPMG Law Insights

Written form healing clauses in commercial tenancy law – contract drafting and case law

Written form healing clauses in commercial tenancy law – contract drafting and case law

The terminability of a long-term commercial lease agreement due to a breach of the statutory written form has always been a focal point in the practice of landlord and tenant law. In this context, the use of so-called written form healing clauses has gained in importance. Two recent rulings by the German Federal Court of Justice provide further legal certainty and suggestions for clear contract drafting.

Many leases attempt to counter written form violations with written form cure clauses. This is intended to preserve the term agreement and prevent premature termination due to a lack of written form in accordance with sections 578 and 550 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

The effectiveness of so-called written form healing clauses has not yet been conclusively clarified.

Effectiveness and state of dispute

In some cases, it is assumed that a written form healing clause is generally invalid. In particular, the Rostock Higher Regional Court (judgment of July 10, 2008, Case No. 3 U 108/07) took the view that they violated mandatory law. The statutory requirement of the written form cannot be generally overridden by a contractual provision.

However, written form cure clauses are usually considered effective, including in general terms and conditions. The argument: The provision is neither surprising nor is it recognizable what an unreasonable disadvantage should be. According to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court (ruling of May 11, 2004, Case No. 24 U 24603), such a clause merely regulates the obligation to comply with the written form requirement at the request of the other contracting party. This merely reinforces the principle that the contracting parties must adhere to concluded contracts (“pacta sunt servanda”).

In case law and in the literature, there has also been no uniform answer to date as to whether a clause can only prevent the original contracting parties from terminating the lease agreement by invoking a deficiency in the written form or whether it also has legal effect vis-à-vis the purchaser of the property.

No binding of the purchaser of the real estate to a written form healing clause

The Federal Court of Justice has now ruled on this issue in a judgment dated January 22, 2014, Ref. XII ZR 68/10, and April 30, 2014, Ref. XII ZR 146/12, ruled that a right of termination on the part of the purchaser of the property cannot be excluded by means of a written form healing clause. The statutory written form requirement under Section 550 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is intended to ensure that the purchaser can, in principle, see the conditions under which he enters into a rental relationship from the rental agreement document.

If this is not the case as a result of invalid, for example merely oral, agreements, the tenant may prematurely terminate the lease agreement by giving ordinary notice of termination. This possibility may not be taken away from him and may not be circumvented by a written form healing clause. The purchaser’s invocation of a deficiency in the written form can therefore – apart from special exceptions – not be contrary to good faith despite a cure clause.

Contract drafting and due diligence

In connection with the conclusion and amendment of long-term commercial leases, the greatest care should always be taken to ensure compliance with the written form required by law. § Section 550 of the German Civil Code (BGB) requires that the agreements essential to the contract concerning the subject matter of the lease, the amount of the rent, etc. be set down in writing in a complete and unambiguous manner. This also applies to agreements from which unilateral powers to amend the contract may arise for one party.

However, practice shows that the necessary strictness of form is often lost sight of, especially in the case of very long existing tenancies as well as changes of owner and manager.

From the point of view of the landlord

In view of his position as a “new landlord”, every purchaser of a property should therefore make sure in the context of the purchase examination that the lease agreement in question contains such a written form healing clause that expressly excludes it from the scope of application. It is then open to him to demand from the tenant, with reference to the effectiveness of the obligation to cure, the conclusion of a rental agreement supplement that eliminates formal defects by oral agreements.

It is then also possible to terminate the contract with reference to an established deficiency in the written form without first having to comply with an obligation to work towards curing the deficiency in form. The latter will be recommended if, for example, the tenant can prove the existence of an oral agreement with the “previous landlord” that is detrimental to the acquirer, such as a permanent rent reduction.

From the point of view of the tenant

A tenant interested in a long-term commitment and term of the lease should inquire about any pending change of ownership before signing the lease. If there are indications that the property is to be sold, the tenant is strongly advised to do everything possible on his own initiative to help conclude a lease agreement that complies with the written form and to avoid subsequent violations of the written form.

Conclusion

It should be noted that the statutory written form requirement with its warning and proof function cannot counter all conceivable risks and that the protection of Section 550 of the German Civil Code cannot be comprehensive.

In view of the economic importance of long-term leases in the commercial sector, every such lease agreement should be carefully bound into one document with all its components for signature and contain a written form healing clause that explicitly addresses the acquirer issue.

Even in the course of a tenancy, a regular review of the correctness of form and, if necessary, adjustment of the provisions of the tenancy agreement is recommended. Written form healing clauses do not make a legal examination of the lease situation superfluous.

According to the most recent case law of the German Federal Court of Justice, purchasers are in the comfortable situation of being able to take an established deficiency in the written form as the starting point for terminating a long-term lease, if desired, without the purchaser having to be accused of acting in bad faith.

Explore #more

03.10.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law and KPMG support the restructuring of Grou-pe CAT in Germany

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft (KPMG Law) and KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (KPMG) advised Groupe CAT on comprehensive restructuring measures with a cross-service team. Over a period of…

02.10.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises Epitype GmbH and MDG Molecular Diagnostics Group GmbH on the acquisition of significant assets of oncgnostics GmbH

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) provided comprehensive legal advice to Epitype GmbH, a company of the Dresden-based MDG Group, on the formation and subsequent…

02.10.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in ZEIT for entrepreneurs: We’ll take the 500 billion!

German construction companies are asking themselves: how quickly will the money come from the government? And they are worried that only the giants will benefit.…

01.10.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Federal Network Agency reforms special network charges for industry and commerce

The Federal Network Agency is planning a fundamental reform of the special network charges for energy-intensive companies. Any change to the current privilege regime entails…

30.09.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law dominates the top 100 list of the new law firm monitor with eight lawyers

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) occupies an outstanding sixth place in the overall evaluation of the TOP 100 law firms in the current diruj…

29.09.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

MiSpeL draft: New funding for energy storage systems and charging points

On September 18, 2025, the Federal Network Agency published a draft for the “Market integration of storage systems and charging points” (MiSpeL for short). For…

29.09.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Organizing the transformation and spin-off of corporate real estate with legal certainty

When real estate portfolios are to be transformed or spun off, the economic success depends heavily on the legal preparation. Complex legal issues often arise,…

25.09.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

MaGo update – roadmap for implementing the new requirements

On 14 July 2025, BaFin revised the circular “Minimum requirements for the business organization of insurance companies under Solvency II” (MaGo for SII-VU) and published…

25.09.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Foundation register – launch to be postponed from 2026 to 2028

The reform of foundation law, which came into force in July 2023, created a nationwide foundation register based on the commercial register. This was actually

24.09.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in In-house Counsel: Leveraging potential

The role of the legal department in the company has changed significantly in recent years. Its importance is high. However, it is also increasingly becoming…

Contact

Dr. Rainer Algermissen

Partner
Head of Construction and Real Estate Law

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 3609945331
ralgermissen@kpmg-law.com

Petra Swai

Senior Manager

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 3609945523
pswai@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll