Question
I want to sell my house which is currently rented out. The person who is renting the house is interested in buying the house but he does not want to commit to a specific price. Rather, he told me that he will match any price that I will sell it for. This inhibits me from selling the house since I can't in good faith push someone to buy the house for a relatively high price and then he will be pushed out by the renter. May I ignore the renter and sell it to whoever I want?
Answer
We will first study the source and rationale of the law that grants your renter the right of first refusal since that will enable us to answer your question.
The entire concept of an automatic right of first refusal is an edict of the Rabbis that was granted to an immediate neighbor, known as the "bar metsro," of a property that is up for sale. Even though this was enacted by the rabbis and is not a Biblical law, it is based on a broad Biblical principle of what constitutes proper behavior.
Since the Torah enjoins (Devorim 6, 18) Jews: "You should do what is proper and good," the Rabbis enacted that since the owner of the adjacent property stands to receive a greater gain by purchasing the property bordering his present property while anyone else can just as well purchase a different property, the Rabbis granted the owner of the adjacent property the right of first refusal. Since this enactment is based on a Torah principle, some Rishonim (Teshuvos Maimonides Kinyan 16) maintain that it is close to being a Torah command.
In practice, this enactment means that if a person sells his property to a non-neighbor, the neighbor can force the buyer to surrender the property to him for the price that he paid. (The reason we use the word "surrender" is because the way this enactment works is that the one who bought the property is considered as having acted as the agent for the neighbor to buy the property for him, even though he intended to buy it for himself.)
We have to examine if this enactment grants a renter a right of first refusal or is confined to a neighbor. The Rambam (Shecheinim 12, 8) rules that the concept of bar metsro does not apply to rentals. The Rambam is very succinct and does not write exactly which transaction that concerns rentals is excluded. However, there is a related Gemara that deals with security deposits that sheds light on the issue of the right of first refusal for a renter.
The Gemara (BM 108B) rules that the law of bar metsro does not apply to properties that were given as security deposits. The Rosh (BM 5, 36) understands that the Gemara teaches us that if the borrower sells a property given as a security deposit to the lender who is presently in possession of the property, a neighbor does not have the right to force the lender to surrender the property to him. From the fact that the lender has such a right, the Rosh derives that if the owner sells the property to another person, the lender can force the buyer to surrender the property to him.
However, many Rishonim (Ramban, Rashbo, Ran, Nemukei Yosef and, according to the Beis Yosef, probably the Rambam) understood the opposite: that just like the neighbor cannot force the lender to surrender to him the property if the lender buys the property, so too the lender cannot force a neighbor who buys the property to surrender the property to him. The Mechabeir (CM 175, 57) rules that this is the authoritative approach but the Ramo rules that the approach of the Rosh is authoritative.
The Mechabeir also rules (175, 63) that if a person sells his property, the renter of the property cannot force the buyer to surrender the property to him. In this case the Ramo does not record a dissenting position and there is a dispute among the poskim what this omission means.
The Sema (note 116) comments that just like the Ramo maintains that a lender can force the one who buys a property that was given to him as a security deposit to surrender the property to him, so too a renter can force the one who buys the property that he is renting to surrender the property to him. However, the Pischei Teshuvo (note 28) cites the Maharshal (res. 43) and Bach (res. 69) who differentiate between a lender and a renter and maintain that the Ramo agrees with the Mechabeir that a renter cannot force a buyer to surrender his purchase to him.
The Pischrei Teshuvo cites the Shevus Yacov (3,165) who lived after all these poskim who writes that in light of these disputes, in practice, if a person wants to sell, and both the renter and someone else want to buy with the same conditions, he would rule that the owner should sell to the renter. However, if the owner already sold it to someone, he would not grant the renter the right to force the purchaser to surrender the property to him since that is the position of many poskim. Many Poskim follow this practice of the Shevus Yacov.
Based on the above, your question is only whether, in your situation, you must prefer the renter. In any case post-facto, if you sell to someone else, your renter will not be able to force your customer to surrender the property to him.
You say that the manner in which your renter is using this law hinders your ability to get the highest price for your property, and your question is whether the law applies in this situation as well.
We learned at the outset that the basis for this law is the Torah's command to behave in a proper manner which was interpreted by the Rabbis to include that a seller must prefer a customer who will have greater benefit from a property over someone who will not have any particular benefit. It is basically a situation of ze nehene veze lo choseir, applied to buyers.
Therefore, it is reasonable that just like this law only applies where the other customers don't lose anything as a result of this enactment, so too it should only apply if the seller does not lose anything. In fact, this logic prevails and the law only applies if the seller has no loss whatsoever as a result of this enactment.
This is stated unequivocally by the Ramo (175, 23) and is derived from many rulings of the Gemara which are recorded by the SA. For example, if the neighbor does not have all the money available immediately, the seller is not obligated to sell to him because the seller does not have to wait until the neighbor's money becomes available. Moreover, (CM 175, 8) even if the other buyer also needs time to complete payment, the seller can still refuse to sell to the neighbor if he needs to buy on credit since the seller can argue that the other customer is more creditworthy.
Therefore, if you are correct that applying this enactment in the manner that your renter is using it will cause you a loss, you can ignore this edict since it therefore does not apply to your situation.
However, based on another law it seems that this enactment will not cause you a loss and, on the contrary, you can use it in a manner that will be beneficial.
The law (175, 31) is that if the seller offers the property to the neighbor at a specific price and the neighbor even verbally rejects the seller's offer, the seller is free to sell to others at this price. The Choshen Ve'eifod, in his commentary, clarifies that the seller does not have to actually have a customer who is willing to pay this price at the time when he offers it to the neighbor.
Therefore, you can estimate the highest price that you reasonably think that you can get for your property, and offer it to your renter at this price. If he accepts then sell it to him and if not, you are free to sell to whoever you want. You can use this to pressure a potential buyer to buy at this price because you can tell him that if he doesn't pay you this price, you may have to sell to your renter.
If you don't find a customer at that price you can go down and again offer it to your renter with the same consequences as before, and you can keep doing this until you sell.
In conclusion: If your renter's tactic will cause you even the slightest loss you may ignore your renter and sell to whomever you want and the renter will not be able to force your customer to sell the property to him. However, generally it should not cause you a loss and in fact it may be helpful.
