its just a fraudulent act on their part.. its call fraudulent inducement to contract.. without it seller would never contract with the buyer ..

Until you exercise that option, you are essentially just a renter.

This seems mostly an academic exercise as lease rate and Cap Rate are largely set by the market.

I think there is really trying to do your best as a syndicator and then gross negligence projecting deals that are riskier than they are but painting a picture of less risk to induce capital to purchase.

If I felt that way, I wouldn't make the agreement to begin with and I work hard to communicate clearly, calmly, and effectively to keep it from getting to that point.I am also open to compromise as my lease offers me protections that I may not need to exercise in all situations to get a fair outcome. 

It's called Fraud by Inducement.

If the locations turned negative, Dollar General never exercised the option to extend, and if the location remained good, they built a larger store across the street.  

Will you be responsible for trimming feet, doing shots, wormer, exercise, what if the horse gets sick, what if a horse brings in something like vesticular stomatitus, and all the horses get it? 

So the wife would be exercising her homestead rights if she moves in and that is her primary residence, not her husband's right. 

Has anyone else gone through this exercise and can shed some light on the positive and negative aspects of the different approaches?