Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration. [2] In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed. A covenant is an agreement like a contract.
Sipes from Detroit, Michigan, where the McGhees purchased property that was subject to a similar restrictive covenant. In that case, the Supreme Court of Michigan also held the covenants enforceable. The Supreme Court consolidated Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v. Sipes cases for oral arguments and considered two questions:
However, Texas courts will not enforce a covenant not to compete if the court determines that such a covenant "is against public policy and therefore substantively unconscionable". [65] Several Texas Supreme Court opinions from 2006 onwards have broadened the nature of the consideration necessary to render a noncompete covenant enforceable. [66]
On the face of it disavowing that covenants can "run with the land" so as to avoid the strict common law's former definition of "running with the land", the case has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1950 as meaning that "covenants enforceable under the rule of Tulk v Moxhay... are properly conceived as running with the land in ...
An action to enforce townhome covenants is, in fact, a legal or equitable action on a contract or written instrument—and so any enforcement action must be brought within five years.
There are five basic conditions that must be met in order for there to be an effective real covenant and equitable servitude: It must be enforceable. To be enforceable it must not be too vague, it must not violate a statute or the constitution, it must not violate public policy, and it must meet the requirements under the statute of frauds.
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. [1]
The defendant in that class action argued that the covenant should not be enforced because of changed conditions. Rejecting that argument, the Illinois state court held that the covenant was enforceable. [1] Years later, a homeowner who had signed the restrictive covenant sold his home to Carl Augustus Hansberry, the father of Lorraine ...