Since most jurisdictions agree that commercial easements in gross may be freely alienated, A is incorrect. Non-use of an easement created by express grant is not sufficient to terminate it, so unless the holder of the easement extinguishes it by a deed that was properly recorded, the easement remains effective; C is therefore incorrect. Belden had constructive notice of the easement when he purchased, and would not have been justified in relying on the absence of visible encumbrances. D is, therefore, incorrect.
Reletting the premises for the balance of the term might also result in a surrender, but this depends on the intent of the landlord. Here, there was much other vacant space in the building, and the landlord has relet the premises for rent lower than provided in the lease, and on a month-to-month basis. Therefore, it is not likely that Lance’s intent was to surrender its rights, but rather, to relet for Tollup’s account (as a mitigation of damages). A is, therefore, incorrect. The agreement between Lance and Tollup did not restrict use of the premises to any particular activity. For this reason, the fact that the premises are not well suited to the activity which Tollup had in mind, or that Tollup is no longer licensed in the practice for which he planned to use them, is irrelevant to his liability under the lease. C and D are, therefore, incorrect.
10. A Ordinarily, a tenant who abandons the premises before the expiration of the lease is liable for rent for the balance of the term.
The lease may reserve to the landlord the right to terminate the tenancy and reenter in the event of non-payment, but B is incorrect because this is alternative to the right to collect rent, not the source of it. A landlord who elects to terminate the tenancy, will not be entitled to collect rent for the balance of the term. C is incorrect, however, because a landlord may elect not to terminate, as did Lardner, and hold the tenant for rent. D is incorrect because neither party to a lease may avoid obligations under it merely by giving notice, unless the lease so provides.
11. B Adpo has been in continuous possession for twenty years. His possession was hostile, because it was contrary to the rights of the City of Hampshire, the land’s true owner. It was open and notorious because it was not hidden, and knowledge of his possession could have been obtained by anyone who looked. Having fulfilled all the statutory requirements, he would ordinarily be correct in his assertion that he has acquired title by adverse possession. Most jurisdictions, however, prohibit the acquisition of city or state property by adverse possession. This being the only legal obstacle to Adpo’s assertion, the outcome will most likely depend on whether the jurisdiction permits the acquisition of city property by adverse possession.