Assume for the purposes of this question only that Typer operated a typing service from an office in her home in Green Hills, and that Foley entered into a contract to buy Typer’s typing service and home. After entering into the contract of sale, however, Foley learned of the zoning law which prohibited the operation of any business in a residential zone. He immediately informed Typer that he would not go through with the purchase of Typer’s home because of the zoning violation. If Typer asserts a claim against Foley for breach of contract, the court should find for
(A) Foley, because the purchaser of realty cannot be forced to buy a potential litigation.
(B) Foley, but only if he could not have discovered the zoning violation by reasonable inquiry prior to entering into the contract of sale.
(C) Typer, because the zoning law which prohibited the operation of Typer’s business existed before the contract of sale was formed.
(D) Typer, because her business was permitted by provisions of the Green Hills subdivision plan.
Assume for the purpose of this question only that Graves purchased the land owned by Homer, tore down the existing house, and began construction of a three story office building. Kaham, who operated a business known as a water slide on the adjacent realty, objected on the ground that the building which Graves was constructing would block off Kaham’s air and light, thus diminishing the value of his realty. If Kaham commences an appropriate proceeding against Graves seeking an order which would prohibit construction of the building, the court should find for
(A) Graves if the construction of a three story office building is permitted by the zoning law.
(B) Graves because commercial use of the realty is the highest and best use.
(C) Kaham, because previous use by Homer created an implied easement for air, light, and view.
(D) Kaham, if residential use by Homer was a continuing non-conforming use.