unreasonable. [Civil Code] §1354, subd. (a). In states lacking such legislative guidance, some courts have adopted a standard under which a common interest development’s recorded use restrictions will be enforced so long as they are “reasonable.” Although no one definition of the term “reasonable” has gained universal acceptance, most courts have applied what one commentator calls “equitable reasonableness,” upholding only those restrictions that provide a reasonable means to further the collective “health, happiness and enjoyment of life” of owners of a common interest development. Others would limit the “reasonableness” standard only to those restrictions adopted by majority vote of the homeowners or enacted under the rulemaking power of an association’s governing board, and would not apply this test to restrictions included in a planned development project’s recorded declaration or master deed. Because such restrictions are presumptively valid, these authorities would enforce them regardless of reasonableness. The first court to articulate this view was the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In Hidden Harbour Estates x. Xxxxx, 393 So.2d 637 (Xxx.Xxx. 1981), the Florida court distinguished two categories of use restrictions: use restrictions set forth in the declaration or master deed of the condominium project itself, and rules promulgated by the governing board of the condominium owners association or the board’s interpretation of a rule. The latter category of use restrictions, the court said, should be subject to a “reasonableness” test, so as to “somewhat xxxxxx the discretion of the board of directors.” Id. at 640. Such a standard, the court explained, best assures that governing boards will “enact rules and make decisions that are reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness and peace of mind” of the project owners, considered collectively. Id. By contrast, restrictions contained in the declaration or master deed of the condominium complex, the Florida court concluded, should not be evaluated under a “reasonableness” standard. Id. at 639‑640. Rather, such use restrictions are “clothed with a very strong presumption of validity” and should be upheld even if they exhibit some degree of unreasonableness. Nonenforcement would be proper only if such restrictions were arbitrary or in violation of public policy or some fundamental constitutional right. Id. at 640. The Florida court’s decision was cited with approval recently by a Massachusetts ap...
unreasonable. The Legislature’s use of the phrase “unless unreasonable” in section 1354 was a marked change from the prior version of that statutory provision, which stated that “restrictions shall be enforceable equitable servitudes where reasonable.” ... Under settled principles of statutory construction, such a material alteration of a statute’s phrasing signals the Legislature’s intent to give an enactment a new meaning. Here, the change in statutory language, from “where reasonable” to “unless unreasonable,” cloaked use restrictions contained in a condominium development’s recorded declaration with a presumption of reasonableness by shifting the burden of proving otherwise to the party challenging the use restriction. How is that burden satisfied? To answer this question, we must examine the principles governing enforcement of equitable servitudes. As noted earlier, equitable servitudes permit courts to enforce promises restricting land use when there is no privity of contract between the party seeking to enforce the promise and the party resisting enforcement. Like any promise given in exchange for consideration, an agreement to refrain from a particular use of land is subject to contract principles, under which courts try “to effectuate the legitimate desires of the covenanting parties.” Xxxxxxx v. Hacienda Homes, 34 Cal.2d 442, 444‑445 (1949). When landowners express the intention to limit land use, “that intention should be carried out.” Id. at 444; Xxxxxxx, Notice and Freedom of Contract in the Law of Servitudes, 55 So.Cal.L.Rev. 1353, 1359 (1982) (“We may not understand why property owners want certain obligations to run with the land, but as it is their land ... some very strong reason should be advanced” before courts should override those obligations.). Thus, when enforcing equitable servitudes, courts are generally disinclined to question the wisdom of agreed‑to restrictions. This rule does not apply, however, when the restriction does not comport with public policy. Equity will not enforce any restrictive covenant that violates public policy. See Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxx 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (racial restriction unenforceable); [Cal. Civ. Code] § 53, subd. (b) (voiding property use restrictions based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability”). Nor will courts enforce as equitable servitudes those restrictions that are arbitrary, that is, bearing no rational relationship to the protection, preservation, operation or purpose of the af...
unreasonable. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to mean that the Secured Party may act in a commercially unreasonable manner or in bad faith.
unreasonable. The Company may, but shall not be required to, waive or modify the provisions and clauses of Paragraph 12.
unreasonable. Both parties, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Contract, expressly reserve the
unreasonable. With regard to all dates and time periods referred to in this Agreement, time is of the essence.
unreasonable. A decision or action not governed by rational grounds or proper motives, or adhering to good judgment or consistent practices. OVERTIME - The term overtime is used to define those hours of work that exceed the bi- weekly work week of eighty (80) hours. It is understood that hours of work in excess of the bi- weekly eighty (80) hours will be applied in the form of compensatory time. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT COMPLAINT FORM - NJDMAVA AND AFGE LOCAL 371 NAME OF EMPLOYEE JOB TITLE ADDRESS WORK LOCATION DUTY PHONE NATURE OF COMPLAINT _ RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION WAS AN ATTEMPT MADE TO RESOLVE THIS COMPLAINT INFORMALLY, AT THE LOWEST LEVEL? □YES □NO DATE GRIEVANT SIGNATURE 1ST LINE SUPERVISIOR SIGNATURE STEP 1 - This written complaint must be submitted to the appropriate supervisor within fifteen (15) working days. The supervisor shall hear the grievance and respond in writing within five (5) working days. ACTIVITY SUPERVISOR DATE RECEIVED DATE RETURNED NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT COMPLAINT FORM - NJDMAVA / AFGE LOCAL 371 STEP 2 - If the complaint is not satisfied, the grievant has five (5) working days from the date returned to appeal to the Step 2 Supervisor. The Step 2 Supervisor shall hear the grievance and review the Step 1 decision. He/she will respond within fifteen (15) working days of the receipt of the appeal. ACTIVITY SUPERVISOR DATE RECEIVED DATE RETURNED STEP 3 - If the Step 2 process is not successful, the grievance can be forwarded to the Partnership Council Intervention Team within fifteen (15) working days. INTERVENTION TEAM DATE RECEIVED INTERVENTION TEAM DATE RETURNED STEP 4 - If the grievant is not satisfied with the Intervention Team process, he/she must request in writing to elevate the dispute to The Adjutant General within fifteen (15) working days. The Adjutant General shall render a decision within ten (10) working days. DATE RECEIVED DATE RETURNED STEP 5 - ARBITRATION If the Step 4 process fails, the Union Management may request arbitration within twenty-one (21) days of the Step 4 decision.
unreasonable. The Association may engage in Association activities during working hours or hold meetings at any time on the premises of the Employer with the permission of the Division Director or designate. Permission shall not be unreasonably denied, subject to Articles and
unreasonable. The issuer may in its discretion (but shall not be obligated to) accept documents which substantially or reasonably comply with the terms of the Credit.
unreasonable. This Agreement is executed in two (2) counterparts in Czech and English language and each party obtains one counterpart. Both languages have equal authenticity but in case of any discrepancies between the languages the Czech version prevails. This Agreement is governed by Czech law. This Agreement may be changed, modified, altered or amended by means of the agreement of both parties in a form of written amendments only. Both parties jointly declare that they are not aware of any fact that would prevent concluding the present Agreement or render it invalid, that the Agreement expresses their true and free will and that the this Agreement was concluded on fair and just terms and conditions. The parties further declare that the present Agreement was concluded neither under duress nor in distress nor under conspicuously disadvantageous conditions and in witness of their true and free will they affix their own signatures hereto. Please provide us with the original counter signed letter as soon as possible, after which we will provide the Support in accordance with this Agreement and ask you to notify us in writing upon its receipt. záležitosti ochrany osobních údajů společnosti Baxalta na Společnost Baxalta může omezit nebo zamezit přístup k osobním údajům příjemce, pokud je takový přístup neodůvodněný. Tato smlouva je vyhotovena ve dvou (2) stejnopisech v českém a anglickém jazyce, přičemž každá Strana obdrží jeden stejnopis. Oba jazyky mají stejnou platnost, avšak v případě nesrovnalostí mezi nimi má přednost verze česká. Tato Smlouva se řídí českým právem. Tato smlouva může být měněna čí doplňována pouze na základě dohody stran, a to formou písemných dodatků. Obě strany shodně prohlašují, že jim není znám důvod, který by bránil v uzavření této smlouvy, xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx, xx tato smlouva vyjadřuje jejich pravou a svobodnou vůli a že byla uzavřena za spravedlivých podmínek. Dále smluvní strany prohlašují, že tato smlouva nebyla uzavřena ani pod nátlakem, v tísni ani za nápadně nevýhodných podmínek a na důkaz své pravé a svobodné vůle připojují k této smlouvě své vlastnoruční podpisy. Zašlete nám prosím co nejdříve originál podepsaného dopisu, na základě čehož vám v souladu s touto smlouvou poskytneme podporu. Zároveň vás žádáme, abyste xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx, xx jste podporu obdrželi. Yours sincerely, S pozdravem Baxalta Czech spol. s r.o. Masarykova Univerzita, Institut Biostatistiky a Analýz Name of Duly Represented By/ Řádně zastoupena: (slame...
