Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lord Templeman held that the covenant could not be enforced because the covenant was positive. His judgment said the following. [1]Equity cannot compel an owner to comply with a positive covenant entered into by his predecessors without flatly contradicting the common law rule that a person cannot be made liable upon a contract unless he was a party to it.
A covenant can be terminated if the original purpose of the covenant is lost. In some cases property owners can petition a court to remove or modify the covenants, and homeowner associations may include procedures for removing the covenants. The covenant may be negative or affirmative. A negative covenant is one in which property owners are ...
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United ...
Every county recorder in California will establish a program to identify and redact unlawfully restrictive covenants from the state’s real The post California law requiring removal of racial ...
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 (/ ˈ r uː t ə m /) is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed that a covenant is legally enforceable and refused, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an ...
In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.
In most jurisdictions, courts routinely "blue pencil" or reform covenants that are deemed not reasonable. The blue pencil doctrine gives courts the authority to strike unreasonable clauses from a non-compete agreement, leaving the rest to be enforced, or actually to modify the agreement to reflect the terms that the parties originally could have and probably should have agreed to. [3]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!