(A) Titleco, because it was unaware of the existence of the right-of-way deed.
(B) Titleco, because the right-of-way deed was outside the chain of title.
(C) Belden, because Belden was a third party beneficiary of the contract between Sofield and Titleco.
(D) Belden, because the deed executed by Sofield contained a covenant against encumbrances.
(A) Sofield, because Belden relied on the abstract of title prepared by Titleco in purchasing Westacre.
(B) Sofield, because Sofield was without knowledge of any defects in the title to Westacre.
(C) Belden, because the covenants in Sofield’s deed to Belden were breached.
(D) Belden, because Sofield negligently misrepresented the condition of title to Westacre.
(A) The Johnson Chemical Company sold its entire business to another company which was planning to continue operating the business exactly as Johnson had operated it, and it was the new company which was attempting to install the underground pipeline.
(B) The Johnson Chemical Company’s operation had changed since the conveyance of the right-of-way, and it was now planning to use the pipeline for the transportation of poisonous wastes.
(C) No use of the right-of-way has been made since the conveyance eighteen years ago, and the law of the jurisdiction sets a ten year period for acquiring title by adverse possession or acquiring an easement by prescription.
(D) In purchasing Westacre Belden detrimentally relied on the absence of any visible encumbrances, and the installation of an underground pipeline will result in substantial reduction in the value of the realty.