Doctrine of balancing the relative conveniences of the parties
<p>A defense claim of <em>Equitable Estoppel</em> is invoked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...Claims are barred in part of by the Doctrine of Equitable
Estoppel...enforcing the Governing Documents as alleged by Petitioners
would be oppressive and unreasonable.  Furthermore Petitioner's claims
are barred by the <strong>doctrine of balancing the relative convenience of
the Parties</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite Googling the matter, a simple explanation of the bolded notion is sought:</p>
<ul>
<li>examples are helpful</li>
<li>links are appreciated</li>
</ul>
<p>Although IANAL, an explanation at a STEM Bachelor's degree level is appreciated.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/balance-of-convenience/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Law Dictionary</a> defines the Balance of Convenience as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>to balance the relief given to the plaintiff against the injury that will be done to the defendant.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And gives this hypothetical example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The court weighed the balance of convenience and opted not to grant the injunction requested by the plaintiff in light of the harm it would do to the defendant.</p>
</blockquote>

legal-terms florida hoa