The chаllenge оf distinguishing nоrmаl humаn suffering frоm a psychological disorder is influenced by which of the following factors?
A develоper оwned а 30-аcre trаct оf farmland. As required by law, the developer filed a plat with the county planning board, but did not record it. The plat divided the parcel into 87 one-third-acre residential lots. A one-acre strip on the eastern edge of the parcel that abutted a busy highway was set aside for commercial development. The plat restricted each lot to a single residence and banned all "nonconforming detracting structures or appurtenances," including "free-standing flagpoles more than six feet in height, television antennas and receiving equipment of excessive size and obtrusiveness, and windmills." The restrictive clause was put into the deeds of all the residential lots in the subdivision, except for the deeds to lots 23, 24, and 25. This oversight was due to an error by the developer's secretary. All the other lots had deeds stating that the restriction applied "to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns." A homeowner purchased lot 24 and duly recorded her deed in the office of the county recorder of deeds. The developer's salesperson had orally informed the homeowner of the general restrictions applicable to lots in the subdivision. A year later, a sports bar purchased the one-acre commercial strip and installed a large satellite dish. Two years later, the homeowner sold her property to a buyer. The homeowner never mentioned any of the restrictions to the buyer. The buyer put a satellite dish on top of his house. His dish was not as large as the bar's dish, but it was obviously bigger than any of his neighbors' modest antennas. The owners of 15 lots in the subdivision sue the buyer, demanding that he remove the dish. If the court finds for the buyer, what is the likely reason?
Mike develоped а tennis-оriented cоndominium project on lаnd he owned. He cаlled his project “The North Point Tennis Ranch” (“Ranch”). The Ranch consisted of 100 condominium units, 10 tennis courts, and parking facilities. Mike recorded a “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions” (“Declaration”) in the chain of title of all 100 units before sales began. Section 21.9.3 of the Declaration provided: “Each unit owner is free to lease his or her unit to tenants, who will be entitled to use the tennis courts. However, in this situation, the non-resident owner will be barred from using the tennis courts, in order to prevent overcrowding.” The Declaration also established a homeowner’s association that was given the power to enforce the provisions of the Declaration. Wendy, who loved tennis, bought one of the condominium units at the Ranch; at the time of purchase, she had no actual knowledge of the Declaration provisions because she had not read them. Two years later, Wendy bought a new house a few miles away from the Ranch and leased her unit to Tina pursuant to an oral month-to-month lease. Tina entered into possession of the unit. Two weeks later, Wendy drove back to the Ranch with her cousin, who was visiting from out of town, and they played tennis together on one of the courts. Wendy then received a letter from the homeowner’s association which reproved her for “playing tennis as a non-resident owner, in violation of the Declaration.” Wendy later sued the homeowner’s association for a declaratory judgment that the ban on non-resident owners playing tennis was unenforceable. Assume that the jurisdiction uses the test in Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc. to determine the enforceability of restrictions in a common interest community. How will the court rule?