Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:29:43 EDT, Foxs Mercantile
wrote: So apparently, that one with the 75 tower was enforceable. The restriction said that no antenna may exceed the height of the one-story building that it is associated with or attached to. That in itself is unreasonable, and we had technical testimony to back it up. Dear Mrs. Hotz had none to refute that. The judge was dumb and blind, but that's another story. 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? A contract of adhesion has a high barrier for enforcement to take place. Note that the justification for PRB-1 and the impending extension to private contracts is the exercise of Federal interest in amateur radio, hence limited pre-emption. We tried to get this under _Shelley_ where the SCOTUS ruled that contract terms that were against public policy were unenforceable no matter if the affected party signed it but the California Court of Appeal sent it back to the Superior Court for trial. That's when the burden shifted. The neighbors couldn't win at the city level, so they had to resort to the CC&Rs of a development that was co-terminus with the city and whose officers were the city council members. They actually passed the hat for this lawsuit after we won at the city level. This nonsense will disappear when the bill becomes law. "Reasonable accommodation" is not total pre-emption. Nothing is stopping any ham from not claiming the benefit of the limited (PRB-1 style) pre-emption. 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |