In a deed, a grantee may agree to do something or refrain from doing certain acts. This agreement will become a binding contract between the grantor and the grantee. An example would be an agreement to maintain fences on the property or that the property will only be used for residential purposes. This kind of covenant is binding, not only between the grantor and the grantee, but also runs with the land. This means that anyone acquiring the land from the grantee is also bound by the covenant of the grantee. A covenant that provides that the grantee will refrain from certain conduct is called a restrictive or protective covenant. For example, there may be a covenant that no mobile home shall be placed on the property.
A restrictive or protective covenant may limit the kind of structure that can be placed on the property and may also restrict the use that can be made of the land. For example, when a tract of land is developed for individual lots and homes to be built, it is common to use the same restrictive covenants in all of the deeds in order to cause uniform restrictions and patterns on the property. For example, the developer may provide that no home may be built under a certain number of square feet. Any person acquiring a lot within the tract will be bound by the restrictions if they are placed in the deed or a prior recorded deed. Also, these restrictive covenants may be placed in a document at the outset of the development entitled "Restrictive Covenants," and list all the restrictive covenants that will apply to the tracts of land being developed. Any subsequent deed can then refer back to the book and page number where these restrictive covenants are recorded. Any person owning one of the lots in the tract may bring suit against another lot owner to enforce the restrictive covenants. However, restrictive covenants may be abandoned or not enforceable by estoppel if the restrictive covenants are violated openly for a sufficient period of time in order for a Court to declare that the restriction has been abandoned.
Restrictive Covenants In Commercial Contracts In Utah
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Non-compete agreements typically restrict an employee from competing with an employer's business for a period of time in a specific geographical area. Utah courts require that non-compete restrictions be “reasonably limited in time and geographic area” in order to be valid and enforceable.
There may be terms in your contract that says you can't work for a competitor or have contact with customers for a period of time after you leave the company. These are called 'restrictive covenants'. Your company could take you to court if you breach the restrictive covenants in your contract.
In the United States, employers generally use four types of restrictive covenants: (1) covenants not to compete for a certain period of time following the employee's termination from employment (or following a business transaction such as a sale, merger, etc.); (2) covenants not to solicit customers or clients for a ...
Restrictive covenants are clauses in commercial contracts that limit what a party can do, to protect your business interests. The primary purpose of a restrictive covenant in a commercial contract is to restrict the other party from engaging in certain commercial activities.
Broadly speaking, 'covenants' are the contractual devices ensuring that a party receives the benefits that it negotiated for in the business deal. In other words, covenants support the achievement of the purpose implied by the key provisions characterising the transaction.
Take a non-competitive job or role outside your current employer's specialty. Prove your employer breached the contract to invalidate the non-compete clause. Argue that the non-compete is overly restrictive or not enforceable. Negotiate or prove no legitimate business interests exist to uphold the agreement.
Non-compete agreements typically restrict an employee from competing with an employer's business for a period of time in a specific geographical area. Utah courts require that non-compete restrictions be “reasonably limited in time and geographic area” in order to be valid and enforceable.
The primary remedy for breach of a Restrictive Covenant is a permanent injunction to restrain the breach. However, the courts have jurisdiction to award damages instead of an injunction.
