On 8/20/2014 7:22 AM, Phil Kane wrote:
the California Supreme Court shifted the burden to the
respondent (in this case, Jimmy Rich, the ham operator) to show that
the restriction was "unreasonable". We tried very hard to do that
because the restriction was totally unreasonable but the judge was
unimpressed, and Jimmy had to take his 75 foot crank-up tower down.

and previously in response to me:

For a contract term to be valid and enforceable, it must, among other
things, be clear, be reasonable, not contrary to public policy, and
the contract cannot be a "contract of adhesion" where the affected
party has no other choice but to accept the terms rather than
negotiate them.

So apparently, that one with the 75 tower was enforceable.

This leads back to my original question then, what part of having a
FCC grant of license gives amateurs the right to violate the terms
of a contract they signed?





--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com