The solar contracts are long and arduous to read, but it is a must. And your divorce attorney is no help on this - you need a contracts lawyer. The options only sound like you have the option but you do not. They are all in favor of the renewables company.
The renewables company will own their land before this is all over. I hope their lawyer is good. I don't image the company ever did any environmental study or anything else.
JF, thank you so much for your comment. Your insights are great. Also, you are totally correct that the contracts are almost unbelievably one-sided in favor of the developers. Even the best attorneys in the world probably cannot do a great job for the landowner. That is because, in our experience, the investors and lenders dictate the terms and will only negotiate so far.
Our best bet is to educate people and not have them even entertain the idea... hard to do. It's a big world out there and so few of us doing this - keep up the good work!
You do a great job of getting people to think differently about contracts and the consequences. We've been programmed to believe the legal system would be for the little guy; for truth and justice. It is one of the many worldly systems against us.
Thank you Our Amazing Grace. You are right to call it the "legal system". I became a lawyer because I thought we had a "justice system". It is sickening to see how the system is used everyday against good and decent people.
First mistake was even considering the deal. Second was hiring what looks to be an incompetent attorney who didn't explain all the possible ups and downs. Or that EVERYTHING in a contract is negotiable! I am familiar with oil lease contracts which have similar minimal payments to tie up the land when they are not actually doing anything and keep you in the lease. Also the options to extend the lease are familiar.
I feel bad for them but they got into something they didn't understand and obviously hired an A-hole for an attorney!
David Wolosik, thank you for your comment. I so appreciate your insights. My sense is generally that wind and solar contracts are less negotiable than a person might think. There is usually someone down the road who will sign the contract without significant modifications. I communicated with a solar developer (owner) and indicated that I have never seen a well-negotiated wind or solar contract. I have read many dozens of executed ones negotiated by attorneys, some of whom I think are reasonably-talented. My suspicion was that investors and lenders very much limit the extent to which modifications can be made. He said that I was correct. My belief is that you are dead-on that the landowners in this case did not understand what they were getting into.
I don’t know anything about the history of these farm fields, but solar leases is one of the most effective ways (at this time) to keep contaminated crop land productive.
Stephen Beck Marcotte, I appreciate your comment. I share your concern about contaminated farmland. Contaminated water from modern farming practices concerns me immensely as well. However, there is also evidence that solar panels create enormous contamination risk. Removing topsoil for solar will diminish land productivity for millennia as well. It seems like we are trading one problem for another.
Grown up contract requires grown up lawyers up front. I’m sorry it came to this. Another way of thinking about this is the sellers have not lived up to their obligations which the buyers of the options are requiring them to do. The buyers of the options were paying the sellers above their opportunity cost if/when options were struck. Failing to live up to contracts has consequences.
Tim Belden, thank you for taking the time to reply. It is important to note that, as of now, I do not believe there has been any court finding that "sellers have not lived up to their obligations". It is also important to note that, a very reasonable view may be that the buyers of options such as these are paying sellers very poorly for their opportunity cost and the moment a landowner signs a contract like this he creates enormous risk for himself. Landowners can and do make that choice everyday, but the playing field is far from level. Ultimately, the finder of fact in this case could very well agree with everything you have written.
The solar contracts are long and arduous to read, but it is a must. And your divorce attorney is no help on this - you need a contracts lawyer. The options only sound like you have the option but you do not. They are all in favor of the renewables company.
The renewables company will own their land before this is all over. I hope their lawyer is good. I don't image the company ever did any environmental study or anything else.
These are shark infested waters!
JF, thank you so much for your comment. Your insights are great. Also, you are totally correct that the contracts are almost unbelievably one-sided in favor of the developers. Even the best attorneys in the world probably cannot do a great job for the landowner. That is because, in our experience, the investors and lenders dictate the terms and will only negotiate so far.
Our best bet is to educate people and not have them even entertain the idea... hard to do. It's a big world out there and so few of us doing this - keep up the good work!
Thank you so much JF. Your kindness means the world to me!
You do a great job of getting people to think differently about contracts and the consequences. We've been programmed to believe the legal system would be for the little guy; for truth and justice. It is one of the many worldly systems against us.
Thank you Our Amazing Grace. You are right to call it the "legal system". I became a lawyer because I thought we had a "justice system". It is sickening to see how the system is used everyday against good and decent people.
David and Goliath…God, please help them!
Thank you for your comment, Ronald Underhill. They are in a tough spot and face enormous risk. But, if I remember right, David won.
First mistake was even considering the deal. Second was hiring what looks to be an incompetent attorney who didn't explain all the possible ups and downs. Or that EVERYTHING in a contract is negotiable! I am familiar with oil lease contracts which have similar minimal payments to tie up the land when they are not actually doing anything and keep you in the lease. Also the options to extend the lease are familiar.
I feel bad for them but they got into something they didn't understand and obviously hired an A-hole for an attorney!
David Wolosik, thank you for your comment. I so appreciate your insights. My sense is generally that wind and solar contracts are less negotiable than a person might think. There is usually someone down the road who will sign the contract without significant modifications. I communicated with a solar developer (owner) and indicated that I have never seen a well-negotiated wind or solar contract. I have read many dozens of executed ones negotiated by attorneys, some of whom I think are reasonably-talented. My suspicion was that investors and lenders very much limit the extent to which modifications can be made. He said that I was correct. My belief is that you are dead-on that the landowners in this case did not understand what they were getting into.
Thank you for expounding on the intricacies of solar and wind contracts Martin. Hoping for the best for these folks.
I don’t know anything about the history of these farm fields, but solar leases is one of the most effective ways (at this time) to keep contaminated crop land productive.
Stephen Beck Marcotte, I appreciate your comment. I share your concern about contaminated farmland. Contaminated water from modern farming practices concerns me immensely as well. However, there is also evidence that solar panels create enormous contamination risk. Removing topsoil for solar will diminish land productivity for millennia as well. It seems like we are trading one problem for another.
I hear that. In my opinion, if they remove the topsoil the net benefit of the project (to humanity) would be null or negative.
Grown up contract requires grown up lawyers up front. I’m sorry it came to this. Another way of thinking about this is the sellers have not lived up to their obligations which the buyers of the options are requiring them to do. The buyers of the options were paying the sellers above their opportunity cost if/when options were struck. Failing to live up to contracts has consequences.
Tim Belden, thank you for taking the time to reply. It is important to note that, as of now, I do not believe there has been any court finding that "sellers have not lived up to their obligations". It is also important to note that, a very reasonable view may be that the buyers of options such as these are paying sellers very poorly for their opportunity cost and the moment a landowner signs a contract like this he creates enormous risk for himself. Landowners can and do make that choice everyday, but the playing field is far from level. Ultimately, the finder of fact in this case could very well agree with everything you have written.
The legal system is to protect lawyers. Cops carry guns to protect cops. Understand the system.