Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff Roderick McKinnon and Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Roy Benedict entered into an agreement providing that Plaintiff would help getting a resort business of Defendants off the ground, said help includes a $5,000 loan, and in return, Defendants promised to cut no trees between Defendant’s camp and Plaintiff’s property and make no improvements closer to Plaintiff’s property than the present buildings. When the resort business did not prosper, Defendants decided to add a trailer park and tent camp, and Plaintiff sued to enjoin construction.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Oppressive contracts will not be enforced in equity, and restrictions on the use of land are not favored in the law.
A court of equity must be satisfied that the claim for a deed is fair and just and reasonable, and the contract equal in all its parts and founded on an adequate consideration, before it will interpose with this extraordinary assistance.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Did the trial court properly enjoin Defendants’ construction on their own property?
Held. No. Equity will not enforce an oppressive contract, and restrictions on the use of land are not favored in the law. Any doubt as to the use of real estate should be resolved in favor of the free use of property. In the present case, Plaintiff paid grossly inadequate consideration in exchange for the restrictive covenants on Defendants’ land. Plaintiff gave an interest-free loan, but the total interest foregone by Plaintiff was about $145.00. Further, Plaintiff did very little to generate business as he promised.
Discussion. While unconscionable and oppressive contracts may be enforceable at law, the extraordinary equitable remedies of the court cannot be invoked to enforce such contracts.