Which of the following was the result in Double Diamond Properties v. BP Product

Question

Which of the following was the result in Double Diamond Properties v. BP Products, the case in the text in which the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that a restrictive covenant prohibiting the purchase of gasoline from any source other than the defendant was no longer enforceable because the defendant had assigned its right to supply gasoline to another entity?

A- The court ruled that the covenant was not enforceable because it was injurious to the public by reason of its effect on gasoline trade in the area.

B- The court ruled that the covenant was not enforceable because it was unreasonable as to the parties.

C- The court ruled that the covenant was not enforceable because the defendant no longer supplied the plaintiff with gasoline recognizing that the reference to indirect sales in the covenant meant merely that the plaintiff had the option to obtain defendant's brand of gasoline either from the defendant or indirectly from another supplier.

D- The court ruled that the covenant remained enforceable because the defendant continued to provide gasoline on an indirect basis as allowed by the covenant, and the plaintiff failed to prove other challenges to it.

E- The court ruled that the agreement remained enforceable because the intent of the parties when entering into the agreement was that the plaintiff receive gasoline only from the defendant or from an entity of the defendant's choosing.

Explanation / Answer

The court ruled that the covenant was not enforceable because the defendant no longer supplied the plantiff with gasoline recognizing that the refernce to indirect sales in the covenant meant merely that the plantiff had the option defendants brands of gasoline either from the defendant or indirectly from another supplier .

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.