(a) L has the right to oust S from Blackacre.

At issue is whether Ts
agreement to sublease the pottery manufacturing area to S, without
Ls consent, terminated the lease. A lease is a legally binding contract
between a LL and T which grants the T possession and use of the LLs
property for a given period of time. The lease sets forth the terms of
possession, such as rent, length of time of possession and rules
governing tenancy. Here, the lease included a provision that requires
LLs consent for sublease and stated that any violation of the lease
would cause the lease to terminate. As T failed to obtain Ls consent
prior into entering into a sublease agreement with S, the lease
terminated. Upon its termination, S subsequently becomes a
trespasser and no longer has any rights to possession of the land.
Therefore, L may oust S from her property.
(b) The change to Ts business and the result reduction in the rent is
not a ground upon which L could oust T from B. At issue is whether Ls
reduced payments for her share of the sales income caused by Ts
switch from a pottery manufacturing facitlity to an antique store
violated the terms set forth in the lease. A lease is a legally binding
contract between a LL and T which grants the T possession and use of
the LLs property for a given period of time. The lease sets forth the
terms of possession, such as rent, length of time of possession and
rules governing tenancy. Here, as the lease was silent as to what type
of business T would need to operate and wehther he would operate the
business contiously, his switch in businesses would not be enough to
terminate the lease and render T a trespasser which L could oust. As T
has kept current on the rent payments and given L her share of the
sales income, the lease remains in effect, despite the sales income
being lowered.
(c) L has the right to prevent the use of the easement area for parking
and may enforce it by claiming that Ss use of the easement is void
and outside of the purpose for which the E was granted. At issue is
whether the parking of both S & Ts customers on the easement is
reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes of the easement. A grant of
an easement may set out a right or duty in general terms, such as the
right of ingress and egress. In theses cases, courts often states that
the agreement carries with it the implied right to carry on the stated
usage in a manner that: (1) is reasonably necessary to fulfill the
purposes of the easement, (2) is convenient for the easement holder,
and (3) puts as little burden as possible on the owner of the servient
estate. Here, T directed the customers to park on the easement area
upon finding that the parking on B was not adequate to support both
Ss and Ts business. The easement was granted for the right of ingress
and egress between Blackacre, dominant estate, and redacre, the
servient estatenot the customers to park upon. Moreover, the use of

the easement came about since parking was not adequate to support
both business, rather than merely Ts. Ss subslease was void and
therefore not a proper use of the easement.
(d) T would has a potential remedy that the kiln was a fixture, and its
subsequent removal by L constituted waste. At issue is whether L had
the right to enter the building after the business was closed and
remove the kiln.