Exam Question for Property Section

Seek Corporation invests $2 million in exploring for oil on its property. Oil is discovered and Seek begins extracting and selling the oil. However, the oil is part of a common pool and, noticing the success of Seek=s well, Mooch Corporation begins extracting oil from the same common pool by means of a well located on adjacent land which it owns. Because Mooch=s search costs were essentially zero, Mooch is able to sell its oil at a price much lower than that offered by Seek. Seek sues to restrain Mooch=s activities. You represent Seek, and to your dismay your research reveals that because of an obscure 1812 treaty with a Native American tribe, neither Federal nor State oil extraction statutes/regulations apply to this dispute. The only relevant precedent are judicial decisions that cite and adopt the holdings from prominent historical capture cases B i.e., PIERSON V. POST (fox hunt) and its lineage.

‘Articulate an argument on behalf of Seek as to why Seek should prevail in its suit against Mooch. In doing so, draw upon at least two distinct doctrines, policies and/or theories that support your arguments.