composition of old and new oil and the posted price for each. See id. See also MGPC, Inc. v. Canadian Hidrogas Resources, Ltd., 725 F.2d 1376, 1377, 1379 (Em.App.1983) (remanding a case where a contract containing a pricing provision called for prices “consistent with the [federal] pricing guidelines,” so that the trial court might either: (1) ascertain the price by interpreting these regulations; or (2) find that the regulations are too ambiguous to supply a price and determine a reasonably fair price under Section 203-5 of the UCC). Courts have similarly granted specific performance of covenants not to compete, leases, and other agreements, after supplying contractual terms suited to the parties’ initial expectations. See e.g., Gerard v. Almouli, 746 F.2d 936, 939-40 (2nd Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); McLouth Steel Corp. v. Jewell Coal & Coke
recognizing the courts right to modify the parties obligations under a restrictive covenant in light of current developments and the parties initial expectations holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear holding that property owner who violated restrictive covenant multiple times over several years waived enforcement of same restriction against third parties as matter of law holding that the current party was sufficiently identified with the parties to the prior litigation holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable