>Since you are into analogies, say you had a really nice pool and allowed your friendly neighbor to pay you for lifetime use of it as long as he "behaves"<
Doesn't sound like much of a business model. I have a really nice pool.. Swim up Tiki Bar, Margarita Machine, flat screen TV's, etc. My lawyer drafted a "release of liability" that I have anyone sign who wants to enter the pool. The grandkids bring their friends sometimes. But, the kids have their visiting children's parents sign the release. So I think it's a poor analogy, but I will play along for fun.
>a term you leave open-ended since you can't possibly cover every thing that might offend you in a contract.<
Doubtful, multiple lawyers in the family and everything is in a trust. Any contractual obligations go through those on the legal side. They live for covering every contingency. But, I guess they could slip up.
>One day you catch the guy out there skinny dipping, which freaks out your wife and daughters. Do you not have a right to tell the guy to clean up his act or get lost?>
Well, interesting story there which is more of a bit of San Diego history. At one time, Blacks Beach here in Del Mar was zoned as a "clothing-optional beach". Signs were posted in various areas stating that it was a "Clothing Optional" along with the State Code number. The laws were modified in the late 1970's due to the State having little control over the "activities" that went on due to the fact that it was officially zoned under ordinance as "Clothing Optional". (BTW, just so we are clear, there were never any "lifetime clothing-optional" memberships sold by the State of California to Blacks Beach.) The State, in order to give the Rangers more legal control, removed the "Clothing Optional Zoning", and it became "officially" a "Clothing Mandatory" beach in the late 70's. It is still widely known as "clothing optional" and parents of small children don't bring there kids there. The Rangers largely look the other way, but they have the ability to enforce Clothing mandatory, if things get out of had.... I am getting to my point here.. A good friend of mine was a supervisor for the State Beach in that area of San Diego County. So I inquired what would happen to the signs that were posted that stated it was a Clothing Optional beach that had been a fixture of the city for years? He stated that they would be taken down and discarded. I then asked him if I could acquire one due to the history behind the signs. He thought about it and said something like it was a good point. So I think he ended up with all of them, there were only 5 or 6 to begin with, minus the one he game me. That Clothing Optional original sign from Blacks Beach is prominently displayed at the pool in the Tiki Bar. So I am not too sure I could get too upset, when the pool is posted as "Clothing Optional" with a zoning code :-)
But, back to your point, I have the right to tell anyone to get lost out of my pool I want. I built the pool after I moved to the house, so I don't think there were any outstanding commercial commitments or liens regarding "pool memberships" that wasn't even built when I purchased the property.
<Let's further say you decided to finally sell your house. I highly doubt you would see any benefit to putting in a restriction on the buyer that he has to honor your swimming pool deal with your neighbor.>
Well, maybe I wouldn't find a benefit for disclosing the contractual obligation, but simply selling the house without disclosing the contract would not "null and void" the contract. It would open the door for legal trouble due to "non-disclosure". Just because I wouldn't personally find a benefit, doesn't mean I can simply claim that the contract has been "vacated" by transferring title to the house to a new owner.
But, if I were to attempt to sell the house with the contractual agreements that included outstanding pool visitation subscriptions by the neighbors, then I would have to disclose that to the potential new owners, or attempt to negotiate the purchase of the rights granted to the neighbor when they paid for the "lifetime subscription". If the neighbor refused to relinquish their contractual rights, then the potential buyer could then make the decision to buy the house with the existing contractual obligations in place, or walk away.
If I sold the house without disclosing the binding contractual obligations on lifetime pool access by the neighbor, this would not negate the contractual obligations afforded to the neighbor who paid for "lifetime membership". The neighbor would then have to seek damages against the new owner, and against me for breech of contract, the new owners would also then seek damages against me for my failure to disclose this contractual commitment.
Heck, at a rental house I have, I built a very nice block wall between my rental and the neighbors house about 15 years ago. My tenant had a small dog that made a disproportionate amount of noise to its physical size, and the neighbor explained his displeasure of the constant noise. The existing fence was a deteriorating "dog ear" fence, and it is typical that the two abutting homeowners split the costs of fence maintenance. However, I offered to pay for the complete cost of concrete block fence, that would help reduce the noise level from my rental back yard, but due to existing concrete flatwork on my property, and the size of the footing that had to be trenched for the seven foot cider block wall, the neighbor agreed that much of the footing would be excavated from his side of the property line.
Well, about seven years later the neighbors went to a home and the house sold as part of an estate. The new owners moved in, and were quite happy with the wall and never complained about its orientation, those owners moved in the financial collapse in 2008, (to many home equity loans), and the house got new owners in late 2008 and ordered surveyors to survey the property. The discovered that the block wall was indeed partly, and in a few very small areas, entirely on their property. They informed me through legal channels that they wanted the wall demolished, and a different fence built on the original property line. Well, as it turns out, when we built the wall, we also had the property surveyed, for city permits, which showed where the wall would be built and what portions of their property would be affected. Which was included in the city permits applications. My lawyers had the original neighbors sign an agreement that stated that they understood the wall orientation and its impact on their property rights, and that in lieu of the fact I was paying for the construction of a "very nice stucco block wall', that they provided my property perpetual legal "right of way" for the wall.
My lawyers provided their lawyers, (this is Del Mar where everyone is either a lawyer, married to one, or their next door neighbor is one) the legal documents about the contractual agreements regarding the wall. I paid a "financial consideration" for the construction of the wall in lieu of perpetual right of way. The 2008 new owners claimed that there was no disclosure from the previous owners, who were now in Bankruptcy, and the previous owners claimed there was no disclosure, from the original owners when the agreement and the wall was built. The end result is that the people who bought the house in 2008, filed suit against the estate, and against me claiming that I should have also disclosed this during the sale.. Heck, I didn't even know the property was in Foreclosure, and the plans and the agreement were recorded with the permit at the city. Their suit against me was quickly discharged and I was later told that the estate settled for some monetary consideration that far exceeded the value of the six inches of property line ceded for the wall construction.
>Kinda common sense I would think.<
There is no such thing as common sense in commercial agreements. If you lived in Del Mar or La Jolla. You would quickly learn this. |
