A split panel of the Fourth Circuit held today that BP could enforce a restrictive covenant in a deed against a purchaser who sought to use the purchased property for a gas station selling different gas than agreed to in the sale of the property. Chief Judge Traxler wrote the opinion in BP Products, North America, Inc. v. Stanley, which was joined in by Judge Shedd. Judge Floyd authored a dissenting opinion.
From the majority opinion:
The parties agree that under Virginia law, covenants “restricting the free use of land are not favored and must be strictly construed.” Mid-State Equip. Co. v. Bell, 225 S.E.2d 877, 884 (Va. 1976). They disagree, however, regarding the test by which such covenants should be judged. Defendants argue that the restriction should be judged by the standard discussed in Omniplex World Services Corp. v. U.S. Investigations Services, Inc., 618 S.E.2d 340, 342 (Va. 2005), which applies to noncompete covenants in employment contracts. BP contends that restrictive covenants in deeds are judged by a different standard, namely the one discussed in Merriman v. Cover, Drayton & Leonard, 51 S.E. 817, 819 (Va. 1905), and that the Omniplex and Merriman tests are distinct from one another. We agree with BP.
* * *
BP advances multiple arguments challenging the ruling by the district court that the PR was overbroad as a result of its
application to the sale of these enumerated items. BP first argues that, as a petroleum refiner, it has a legitimate business
interest in prohibiting the sale of any products that would dilute the demand for BP’s petroleum. BP also maintains that
the PR should be read to prohibit the sale of kerosene, benzol, or naphtha only to the extent those products are used for the
sale of fuel for internal combustion engines. Finally, BP argues that it is not seeking to prevent the sale of lubricants and that any prohibition of such sales “is academic and represents far too slender a reed on which to invalidate the entire Petroleum Restriction, and thereby allow Stanley to use the Property to sell non-BP fuel, the very use the parties indisputably intended that the Property could not be put.” Appellant’s brief at 48.
From the dissent:
BP contends that we can enforce the PR regardless of any overbreadth simply by excising the offending language. And, since oral argument, BP purportedly has released Stanley from the overbroad portions of the PR. See Ante at 13 n.3. Nevertheless, I cannot conclude that the PR becomes enforceable through alteration by the court or BP. First, Virginia law disfavors judicial reformation of covenants through bluepenciling. See Strategic Enter. Solutions, Inc. v. Ikuma, No. CL 2008-8153, 2008 WL 8201356, at *4 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 7, 2008) (“The Virginia Supreme Court has not directly ruled on ‘blue-penciling’ overly broad clauses in restrictive covenants[;] however it is clear from the restrictive covenant jurisprudence in Virginia that the Court does not entertain the notion that these disfavored restraints on trade should be reformed by the judiciary . . . .”); Daston Corp. v. MiCore Solutions, Inc., No. CL-2010-9318, 2010 WL 7375597, at *5 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 30, 2010); Better Living Components, Inc. v. Coleman, No. CH04-13,307, 2005 WL 771592, at *5 (Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 6, 2005). More fundamentally, however, Virginia law supports narrowly drawn covenants that are reasonable, and general public policy encourages parties to draft precise language on which all participants to a contract can rely. Allowing BP, a multinational, sophisticated corporation, to draft blatantly overbroad restrictions and then, when challenged, simply declare that such restrictions are a mistake and meaningless not only is contrary to basic contract principles, but also is detrimental to the public interest. Accordingly, I find that the PR’s overbreadth spoils its enforceability and dissent from the majority’s contrary conclusion.