4 ms·

Many people buy property with racially restrictive covenants still attached to them, never intending to follow them, and knowing that those racist covenants hav

Many people buy property with racially restrictive covenants still attached to them, never intending to follow them, and knowing that those racist covenants have been unenforceable since the 1940s. Effectively none of these people have acquired a reputation that they are not keeping their word. (Indeed, voluntarily keeping their word would be illegal under the Fair Housing Act.) Just like I don't think anyone who has signed a contract with terms that aren't legally enforceable in CA has gotten a reputation for not keeping their word. (A rare handful of people will back out once they find such restrictions exist, or exercise the recent right in some jurisdictions to disclaim those covenants.) It's certainly true that covenants are much harder to change than an employment contract! But so far your argument hasn't been that simply signing a contract with an unenforceable term, where you know it's unenforceable, is unethical. You haven't placed a weight on the difficulty in making a change. Going back to your original statement: > say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract People move. I always thought that if I moved from CA to TX then such clause would be binding. 'Course, I am not a lawyer. But if most people hold my opinion then again, there's no chance of reputation loss here.

WalterBright 6y ago
The racist covenant is a different situation as it is not only unenforceable, it is illegal for the owner to comply with it. It is not illegal for the employee to adhere to the non-compete agreement.
- eesmith 6y ago
  Yes, I pointed that out. Consider the era between when the Supreme Court said they were unenforceable, and when the Federal government made voluntary adherence illegal. Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? If your father had known that person in the 1950s, would he have said that selling the house to a black family gives them a deserved reputation of breaking their word? Lastly, going back to CA-specific employment law - why can't I agree that if I move to another state then I can be subject to a non-compete agreement that was in the contract when I signed it while living in CA?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? It's a little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards. But I'll take a stab. You can't line out a clause in the covenant like you can in a contract. But you can 1) refuse to buy it or 2) make it clear you'll fight it in court if you need to. As for what my father would do, I don't know. But I do know that he'd judge a man by his honor, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, and his performance of duty to his country. He did not judge a man by his color, uniform, nationality, etc. And it cost him his career in the Air Force, so he didn't take this lightly.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      #1 means the white separationists get what they want. #2 still hasn't happened, despite decades of activism. So would you father have respected someone who kept his word and judged a man by his color by not selling a house to him? Or would he have respected someone who willfully broke an unforceable agreement to discrimintate on the basis of race? I couldn't tell from your answer. If I sign a contract with a non-compete clause in CA, where it's unenforceable, then move to TX with the same job, is that clause now enforceable? If so, then how is it unethical to sign the contract? EDIT: if it's little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards, then is not not also a little unfair to judge a modern person on your father's ethical standards?
- eesmith 6y ago
  Then here's one which I could do voluntarily, in the present day. One of the covenants I had to sign was that I would not run a business from home. I work from home. I signed this knowing that it was not enforceable, because the party that could enforce it was the home owner's association which disbanded 30 years previous. Did I renege on my agreement by signing something that I knew wasn't enforceable. I believe you think so. But did I acquire a reputation that I don't keep your word, because of that? Not one bit. Neither did the other people in the neighborhood who ran a business from home. Here's another: Some covenants prohibit accessory dwelling unit (ADU)s. CA Assembly Bill No. 670 made those void and unenforceable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB670 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... > Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 of the Government Code, is void and unenforceable. If I buy a house with a covenant which prohibits an ADU, knowing that that covenant is void and unenforceable, and with the intent of building a mother-in-law house in violation of that covenant, then am I being unethical? And should I gain a negative reputation for not keeping my word?

WalterBright 6y ago

The racist covenant is a different situation as it is not only unenforceable, it is illegal for the owner to comply with it. It is not illegal for the employee to adhere to the non-compete agreement.

eesmith 6y ago
Yes, I pointed that out. Consider the era between when the Supreme Court said they were unenforceable, and when the Federal government made voluntary adherence illegal. Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? If your father had known that person in the 1950s, would he have said that selling the house to a black family gives them a deserved reputation of breaking their word? Lastly, going back to CA-specific employment law - why can't I agree that if I move to another state then I can be subject to a non-compete agreement that was in the contract when I signed it while living in CA?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? It's a little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards. But I'll take a stab. You can't line out a clause in the covenant like you can in a contract. But you can 1) refuse to buy it or 2) make it clear you'll fight it in court if you need to. As for what my father would do, I don't know. But I do know that he'd judge a man by his honor, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, and his performance of duty to his country. He did not judge a man by his color, uniform, nationality, etc. And it cost him his career in the Air Force, so he didn't take this lightly.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    #1 means the white separationists get what they want. #2 still hasn't happened, despite decades of activism. So would you father have respected someone who kept his word and judged a man by his color by not selling a house to him? Or would he have respected someone who willfully broke an unforceable agreement to discrimintate on the basis of race? I couldn't tell from your answer. If I sign a contract with a non-compete clause in CA, where it's unenforceable, then move to TX with the same job, is that clause now enforceable? If so, then how is it unethical to sign the contract? EDIT: if it's little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards, then is not not also a little unfair to judge a modern person on your father's ethical standards?
eesmith 6y ago
Then here's one which I could do voluntarily, in the present day. One of the covenants I had to sign was that I would not run a business from home. I work from home. I signed this knowing that it was not enforceable, because the party that could enforce it was the home owner's association which disbanded 30 years previous. Did I renege on my agreement by signing something that I knew wasn't enforceable. I believe you think so. But did I acquire a reputation that I don't keep your word, because of that? Not one bit. Neither did the other people in the neighborhood who ran a business from home. Here's another: Some covenants prohibit accessory dwelling unit (ADU)s. CA Assembly Bill No. 670 made those void and unenforceable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB670 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... > Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 of the Government Code, is void and unenforceable. If I buy a house with a covenant which prohibits an ADU, knowing that that covenant is void and unenforceable, and with the intent of building a mother-in-law house in violation of that covenant, then am I being unethical? And should I gain a negative reputation for not keeping my word?