On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:35:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

I'm not aware of any such mechanism. If you know that you're not
allowed to do something, then insuring against being caught doing it
(which is what this amounts to) is probably something that the
insurance companies would decline to cover.

But if I buy a property with a restrictive covenant which means I am
not allowed to do something with it, it is normal practice to take out
a one-premium insurance policy to cover me should the beneficiary of
the covernant or his heirs decide to sue. I don't see a big
difference between the two situations.

It's not so much doing something which I am not allowed to as finding
the right person to ask permission of. In the end of the day it is a
matter of money -- royalty fees -- and I am quite happy to pay those
if I know who to pay them to.
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"