Mr. Smart is the owner of a home in the River View Subdivision. Mr. Smart is the president of the River View Homeowners Association. The subdivision is a private residential community consisting of approximately 200 homes. Each home is located on a one-acre lot. The subdivision is subject to the covenants and restrictions contained in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of River View Subdivision, recorded on June 1, 2001. The relevant portions of the covenants and restrictions provide as follows:

The following covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and shall bind the purchasers, their heirs, successors and assigns, until abrogated by a duly recorded agreement executed by the owners of a majority of the residential lots affected by the restrictions.

1. USE. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No commercial or business activity shall be conducted within the Subdivision with the exception of a personal home office.

Last year, Mr. Gordon Carpenter purchased a home in the subdivision. The deed to the property includes a notation that the property is subject to the Conditions and Restrictions of River View Subdivision. Mr. Carpenter operates a welding business. When they are not in use, he parks two of his one-and-one-half-ton welding trucks on a large parking area that he has cleared next to his residence. He uses the trucks solely in conjunction with his business. At the residence, Mr. Carpenter performs routine maintenance and minor repairs on the trucks.

Mr. Smart, acting as president of the homeowners' association, advised Mr. Carpenter that parking the trucks on the property violates the restrictive covenant limiting the use of the property to residential use. Mr. Carpenter refuses to stop parking the trucks at his property. The property is located in the state of Pennsylvania.

1. Are the key facts sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply as precedent?

1. Are the rules of law sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply as precedent?

1. Is the case on point? Provide a brief explanation.