Approximately

[brightncheerful]

Scenario:
I am advising the tenant of a commercial property whose lease states that the area of the property is approximately 4000 sqft.
The landlord's surveyor has measured the property and says the area is 5000 sqft.

Imo, 'approximately' means very close to, no more than 5% difference plus or minus - i.e., within the range 3800 to 4200 sqft.

Would you agree?

[mc2fool]

Are they measuring the same thing?

The area of a building can be measured in a number of different ways:

• Gross external area (GEA).
• Gross internal area (GIA) or gross internal floor area (GIFA).
  
• Net internal area (NIA).
  
• Total useful floor area (TUFA).
  
• Usable floor area.

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Gross_internal_area_GIA

[brightncheerful]

yes, they are: all NIA

[DrFfybes]

I would have said 10% or possibly 15% out rather than 5%, but not 25% out.

I guess it depends if he's being charged more for the larger space, or trying to use it to secure a better loan rate

Paul

[swill453]

Scenario:
I am advising the tenant of a commercial property whose lease states that the area of the property is approximately 4000 sqft.
The landlord's surveyor has measured the property and says the area is 5000 sqft.

Imo, 'approximately' means very close to, no more than 5% difference plus or minus - i.e., within the range 3800 to 4200 sqft.

Would you agree?

What's the relevance to the tenant? Presumably the landlord wrote the original lease stating "approximately 4000 sqft"? Now, post the signing of the lease, the same landlord has hired a surveyor who now says 5000 sqft. So what?

Scott.

[bungeejumper]

News just in. Donald Trump's lawyers say it's subjective.

BJ

[brightncheerful]

Scenario:
I am advising the tenant of a commercial property whose lease states that the area of the property is approximately 4000 sqft.
The landlord's surveyor has measured the property and says the area is 5000 sqft.

Imo, 'approximately' means very close to, no more than 5% difference plus or minus - i.e., within the range 3800 to 4200 sqft.

Would you agree?

What's the relevance to the tenant? Presumably the landlord wrote the original lease stating "approximately 4000 sqft"? Now, post the signing of the lease, the same landlord has hired a surveyor who now says 5000 sqft. So what?

Scott.

The relevance to the tenant is that the rent for 4000 sqft is lower than 5000 sqft. Also, it's not the same landlord. The other relevance is that a landlord cannot unilaterally ignore what's in the lease.

[BBLSP1]

I would say it depends on the number of significant figures quoted. So in the case of approximately 4,000, I would expect somewhere between 3,500 and 4,500, whereas had approximately 4,200 been quoted, I would expect between 4,150 and 4,250.

[Dicky99]

The landlord's surveyor has measured the property and says the area is 5000 sqft.

I think before debating the definition of approximately I'd be ruling out the possibility of the landlords surveyor being wrong.

[Maroochydore]

To quote RICS Code of Measuring Practice:

What professional measurers, or their customers, consider to be the required degree of accuracy in terms of the final reported figures is dependent upon the site-specific conditions and circumstances, across the wide spectrum of sites and properties for which the Code may be applied.....

....They might pace out the extents of a tarmacadam car park when valuing an application for interim payment for building works undertaken, but use a hand-held laser measuring device or some technically advanced surveying equipment when measuring the net internal area of office space in a building in the City of London.

In the first case, dependent upon circumstances, an accuracy requirement of say +/- 10% of the total area may be acceptable, whereas in the second case a reported figure of better than +/-1% may be expected, again dependent upon circumstances.

So, pays yer money and .....

[Mike4]

I would say it depends on the number of significant figures quoted. So in the case of approximately 4,000, I would expect somewhere between 3,500 and 4,500, whereas had approximately 4,200 been quoted, I would expect between 4,150 and 4,250.

I agree, there is clearly a lot of rounding or inaccuracy on the part of both of the values quoted in the OP. The chances of of either value (4,000 or 5,000) being exactly correct are vanishingly small so the fact that 1,000 has been chosen as the multiple of each approximation says something about the expectations of both parties. I'm not sure what though, other than neither of them can be bothered to even measure more accurately, to the nearest 100 square feet say.