Reference no: EM133166444

Zlotoff owned a roller skate rink and two adjacent vacant lots. Also next to one of the vacant lots was an office building owned by Cota. Zlotoff was not a fan of Cota because Cota's tenants made a habit of using the vacant lot as their own personal parking lot. Tucker offered to purchase the vacant lot used by Coda's tenants, and Zlotoff agreed, but subject to one unique condition. In the event that Tucker later sold the property to Cota, Tucker would owe Zlotoff $20,000 as liquidated damages. Zlotoff disclosed that Coda was his uncle and they clearly did not get along. As it turns out, Tucker was good friends with Coda. After the purchase from Zlotoff, Tucker sold the land to Coda. Zlotoff learned of the sale shortly thereafter and needless to say he was not happy. He immediately filed a lawsuit against Tucker seeking to collect on his liquidated damages of $20,000.

Tucker's position in the litigation was that the liquidated damages provision was an unreasonable restraint on alienation. You are the judge hearing this case. Based upon your knowledge of the concept of unreasonable restraints on alienation, who do you rule in favor of and why?