LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #22   Report Post  
Old August 20th 14, 05:29 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2013
Posts: 41
Default USA HR-4969

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

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017