With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". suggests that one of the Structure Owners authorized carnival companies to operate on the lots during the decades before Overflow Owner’s arrival. The evidence is silent on whether all of the most recent carnivals were authorized only by Overflow Owner or possibly, at times, by other premises owners. On this mixed evidence, Structure Owners’ role in permitting recurring carnival operations cannot be described as mere acquiescence or failure to enforce restrictions being violated by others. There is at least some evidence that some or all Structure Owners violated the applicable restriction through their own affirmative conduct in authorizing carnival operations on the premises before Overflow Owner held any ownership interest in the property. Cf. Friedman, 2013 WL 6175318, at *4-5 (<HOLDING>). Because one’s own violation of a restriction

A: 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
B: holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties
C: holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable
D: holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
A.