RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT OF DOUGHERTY LAKE SUBDIVISIONRestrictive Agreement • March 31st, 2022
WHEREAS, on February 7, 1972, Burton Duenke Construction Company, a Missouri Corporation (hereinafter called "Grantor") was the owner of a tract of land situated in the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, described as follows:
ContractRestrictive Agreement • March 5th, 2009
Case number: Vj-140/2006 Type of case: Restrictive agreement Undertaking(s) concerned: Hungarian Wholesale Newsagent Hungarian Post Short description: The Hungarian Wholesale Newsagent Co. Ltd. and the Hungarian Post Co. Ltd. entered into an agreement restricting competition. The two companies agreed not to attack each other’s markets. Decision: A fine of EUR undertakings. 1 890 000 was imposed on each of the two Date: Budapest, 8 November 2007
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTRestrictive Agreement • March 9th, 2018
Whereas, XYZ and Doe have had extensive and valuable experience in the service business performing maintenance, service, repair, and other related activities on heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, equipment and controls. All of such business operations are referred to as the “Business”; and
vj-058_2004_tab_a.docRestrictive Agreement • April 26th, 2005
Case number: Vj – 58/2004 Short title (party, conduct, type of case): Vektor Rt./Huntraco Rt./McCormick Ltd./Laverda S.p.a - tractor distribution, exclusivity - restrictive agreement Type of case: Restrictive agreement Vertical Description: Two tractor producers, McCormick and Laverda signed exclusive sale agreements with a Hungarian distributor, Vektor Rt. in 2002. The agreement, terminated in early 2004, before EU-accession, was found to fall under de minimis rule by the Competition Council. Choosing another Hungarian distributor the producers signed letters of intent with Huntraco. The Competition Council ruled that the letters of intent could not be judged as meritorious agreements that fall under the Hungarian Competition Act, and that the assessment of the restrictive agreement can be done when the meritorious agreements have been approved. Termination of the proceeding. Date: November 19, 2004
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT FOR VALLEY VISTA SUBDIVISIONRestrictive Agreement • June 14th, 2006
INC., a North Carolina corporation, is the owner of all the lots of Valley Vista Subdivision, plat of which is recorded in the office of Register of Deeds of Haywood County, North Carolina, in Plat Book L, page 18; and
ContractRestrictive Agreement • February 1st, 2008
Case number: Vj-26/2006 Type of case: Restrictive agreement Undertaking(s) concerned: Navi-Gate Kft. and Others Short description: Navi-Gate and other undertakings entered into a reseller agreement restricting competition. They fixed the retail prices of PNA Garmin navigation tools, and that of the I-Go software running on PDAs. Decision: A fine of HUF 43 million (approximately EUR 169 thousand) was imposed on Navi- Gate. Date: Budapest, 5 November 2007
ContractRestrictive Agreement • June 16th, 2005
Case number: Vj–089/2003/58 Short title (party, conduct, type of case): HUNNIA Vadgazdálkodási Kft et al. / Vadgazdálkodási Szolgáltatások és Termékek Terméktanács / Budapesti Agrárkamara – lease hunting – restrictive agreement Type of case: Restrictive agreement Horizontal Date: December 9, 2004, Budapest
Buffalo Mountain Home Owners’ Association Restrictive AgreementRestrictive Agreement • September 14th, 2020
Article X, Section 16. Renting of Property: All Lot Owners desiring to rent a Lot in the Subdivision shall notify the Board of Directors of the Association. Such notice shall inform the Board of Directors of the name of the tenant renting the property, the length of the lease, and an address and phone number where the Lot Owner may be reached by the Board of Directors.
ContractRestrictive Agreement • September 24th, 2008
Case number: Vj-97/2006 Type of case: Restrictive agreement Undertaking(s) concerned: SAP, Synergon Short description: SAP and Synergon entered into a restrictive agreement - the Municipal Court of Budapest upheld the decision of 2006 of the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH). Decision: That time the two firms were fined HUF 14,6 each for the infringement. Date: 29 May 2008
JUDGMENTRestrictive Agreement • October 29th, 2020
ContractRestrictive Agreement • February 23rd, 2010
Case number: Vj-57/2008 Type of case: Restrictive agreement Undertaking(s) concerned: Hungaropharma and several pharmacies Short description: The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) established that two points of the cooperation agreement regulating the operation of the Gyöngy Pharmacy Network including Hungaropharma and several pharmacies may be eligible for restricting competition. Decision: The GVH prohibited the application of the objected points. Beyond establishing the infringement no fine was imposed, since Hungaropharma admitted the infringement and actively cooperated with the GVH in the course of the proceeding Date: Budapest, 22 Dec 2008
ContractRestrictive Agreement • April 17th, 2008
Case number: Vj-26/2006 Type of case: Restrictive agreement Undertaking(s) concerned: Navi-Gate Kft. and Others Short description: Navi-Gate and other undertakings entered into a reseller agreement restricting competition. They fixed the retail prices of PNA Garmin navigation tools, and that of the I-Go software running on PDAs. Decision: A fine of HUF 43 million (approximately EUR 169 thousand) was imposed on Navi-Gate. Date: Budapest, 5 November 2007
SCHEDULE CRestrictive Agreement • November 17th, 2008
The Purchaser, with intent and so as to bind the Lot into the hands of whomsoever it may come and to benefit and protect the other proprietors of land forming part of the Development and all parts of it as a building scheme, covenants with the Vendor that the Purchaser and his successors in title will, at all times, observe and perform the following stipulations and restrictions, in relation to the Lot.
