The Pros And Cons Of Business Law

In 1969, Massachusetts fashioned the law 40B, famously referred to as the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act”, which allows developers to bypass land use restrictions in towns where less than ten percent of the housing meets the state definition of affordable. There are multiple positions and solutions to friction in Massachusetts largely inspired by controversy surrounding the State's affordable housing law, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B between housing advocates and open space advocates. This thesis reviews and critiques the current law, and diagnoses various legislative proposals for the progressive feud.

Mary McDonald, an 86-year-old woman, was frequently complaining about the high cost of maintenance of her house and high property taxes. She decided to cancel her fire insurance to reduce expenses. Mary’s daughter was aware of her mother’s concern about the property, and she took Mary to the lawyer’s office to sign some papers that would protect her mother. When Mary came to the lawyer’s office, she was advised that the paper she was going to sign was the deed to the property. Mary signed a document. Later on, when the municipal tax bill arrived, Mary McDonald was really surprised to see that the property was in her daughter’s name.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

Board of Appeals of Worcester, 340 Mass.748, 753. Accordingly, the court ultimately reversed the decree granting the zoning variance tothe gas station.In order for Client to be granted a permit variance to build a gas station in a commercial officespace zone, he must meet each of the 40A, § 10 statutory requirements. Grenon v.Commonwealth, (2004) Mass. Super. LEXIS 176.In Shacka v. Board of Appeals, the Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed a zoning variancegranted to a gas station owner when it determined there were no facts to support a hardshipexisted. The court stated “if there is occasion to change the uses permitted on this and otherland in the area, because of the general effect of the shift to business, that is for the town toconsider by way of amendment.” Similarly under the client’s circumstances, a court would findan amendment more appropriate in addressing his concerns of an overage of commercial officespace and need for a gas station. (1961) 341 Mass. 593.Client has no hardship related to his request for a zoning variance and thus would not qualifyfor one. Simply because Client believes a gas station is needed in the area, and that officespace is too plentiful, in no way meets the zoning statutory requirements of 40A, § 10.In summary, Client has no legal basis to request a zoning variance in not meeting the 40A, §10 statutory

40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract.

In the Lucas case property was purchased on the costal area of South Carolina. When Lucas purchased the property he had the intent to build single-family homes. Under the understand of the regulation that he could not build with in three- hundred feet form the

When looking into the history of the building and the surrounding buildings to find out the past they noticed that the property right next door had historical value. This meant it could not be broken down at any point in the future. The land already had specific zoning and ordinances that did not allow them to build the mixed use type of building that they wanted. They then looked to get the zoning changed from a C-2 zoning to a C-3 zoning, which would then allow them to be able to build what they were hoping to build. A C-2 zoning better known as a neighborhood business, permits the uses of C-1 zoning uses, rentals, outdoor advertising, and the building of different forms of shops. The major difference between these zonings is the maximum height limit allowed for the owners of the properties to build. With a C-2 zoning, the maximum height limit for the building is thirty-five feet, or as provided in community standards district. On the other hand, a C-3 zoning allows the height limit to be thirteen times the buildable area (except as otherwise provided in community standards). This distinction in zonings made it imperative for my family to be able to get their zoning change passed for their project. After speaking with the city about this and filing certain motions to change the zoning, the city requested the creation of residential space instead of

In 1986, David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots with the intention of building single-family homes on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, [p1007] South Carolina. Two years later in 1988 the South Carolina Legislature barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land for erosion and destruction prevention purposes under the Beachfront Management Act thus making Lucas’ property valueless. Lucas sued the state agency for the deprivation of viable economic use for the parcels and under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was seeking

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning violates the 5th and 14th Amendments. Lack of affordable housing across the country is an issue that has gained national attention, and some areas in the country have resorted to zoning strategies to address the problem. For example, builders in Seattle who take advantage of the Incentive Zoning program will receive additional floor area in exchange for including affordable housing units in their developments (Director’s Rule, 2015). In contrast, mandatory inclusionary zoning is the unconstitutional practice of requiring private developers to include a specified percentage of affordable housing in their projects (Lerman, 2006). Mandatory inclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. It also violates the life, liberty and property interest protections of Due Process as well as the equal protection provisions under the 14th Amendment.

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

While Cove Creek Condominium Association v Vistal Land & Home Development, L.L.C., et al., Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 16-155706-CH (Order Granting Summary Disposition, Dated February 10, 2017) is only a circuit court opinion, it certainly provides a significant amount guidance in interpreting MCL 559.167. Until there is a published court of appeals opinion that interprets MCL 559.167, attorneys, co-owners, condominium associations, developers, successor developers and title companies should be aware of the following takeaways from the Cove Creek case:

There is a literal conflict between the state and the federal measures, so that it is impossible to follow both simultaneously.

Held: the reduction of privacy was not within the scope of this covenant. It was held that there was no breach because it did not prevent the use of the premises as residential flats.

Mrs. Turner has decided to start her own business running a private day nursery. It is