The house is almost right. For the desired access or extension you additionally need the neighbouring plot. Its owner does not want to sell today, but offers a “right of first refusal or option to purchase”. The two terms must not remain as equivalent assurances in your decision to buy.
State openly that a second acquisition is necessary
First describe what you can actually do with the house without the additional plot. Is the later purchase a pleasant wish or a prerequisite for your essential use? Structural or public-law permissibility does not follow from a private acquisition right alone. These questions must be examined separately.
Our editorial recommendation: Assess the house offered today once with and once without the hoped-for second acquisition. If it fails to meet your needs without this step, the securing of the second step must be professionally clarified before your binding decision.
Have the declaration examined for its trigger
With a right of pre-emption under §463 BGB the purchase contract of the obligated party with a third party is the statutory trigger. That does not imply a general power to force the neighbour to sell at any time. [VORKAUF]
The effect of an offered option to purchase or any other acquisition agreement is determined by its concrete design. Have it explained who can trigger the acquisition, under what conditions and for which exactly designated object. A conversation about a later willingness to sell does not answer these questions.
Do not defer price and scope until later
Your decision also needs to make price determination, duration, personal entitlement and possible legal security comprehensible. This article does not contain a contractual clause for that purpose. Specialist advice must assess the proposed agreement including its formal requirements. §311b para 1 BGB generally requires notarisation for the obligation to transfer or acquire real estate. [FORM]
Therefore do not rely on the headline of a private addendum. Inform the notary explicitly that today’s house purchase is economically dependent on another acquisition planned only for the future. This very connection belongs in the examination of the whole project.
Hypothetical case: The neighbour wants to keep it
A buyer plans a workshop access over an adjoining plot. She assumes that with the offered right of pre-emption she will soon be able to demand the acquisition herself. However, the neighbour does not plan to sell to third parties. The buyer had assumed an imminent purchase as certain without understanding the actual trigger.
Before committing she now has the acquisition possibility and the usability permissibility that is required independently of it clarified. If both remain open, she evaluates the house on the basis of the secured current possibilities. The example asserts neither a claim against the neighbour nor the permissibility of the access.
Distinguish a secured acquisition from a hope
Record as a result which legal position exists after professional examination and which event is still required. Good neighbourly relations are helpful for later discussions. However, they do not turn an unexamined second land purchase into an available component of the first purchase offer.