Question 1 (50 minutes suggested time). Harry was an avid amateur hunter, and he occasionally sold his kill to wealthy collectors, who had it mounted by taxidermists and displayed to their friends. (His stuffed squirrels were particularly popular.) However, he had difficulty finding suitable land on which to hunt. The only real estate Harry owned was a city lot in Provo in the state of Apathy.

One day Harry described his plight to his friend Frieda, who owned a large farm about 25 miles from Provo (although she had never owned any other land). Much of her farm was wooded and replete with wildlife. Frieda said, "Harry, you are welcome to hunt on my farm any time, and so are your heirs and assigns, whatever that means." "Thanks, Frieda. You're a true friend," Harry replied, and they shook hands on their agreement (although they never reduced it to writing).

Harry was excited at the prospect of having a good location for hunting, so he purchased a new 4-wheel-drive vehicle and two new rifles. He went hunting on Frieda's farm several times, and enjoyed it immensely. Then Frieda died unexpectedly of mad cow disease, and her farm was inherited by her daughter, Fannie. Soon thereafter, Harry broke his leg and was unable to hunt, so he gave his son Hugh the following document:

I, Harry Hunter, hereby convey to my son Hugh Hunter, all of my right, title and interest in my easement to hunt on the farm formerly owned by Frieda Farmer.
Signed /Harry Hunter/

A week later Hugh decided to exercise his newly-acquired right to hunt. However, when he arrived at the farm, he was met at the entry gate by Fannie, who had a shotgun. She told Hugh to get off her land and never to return, and threatened to shoot if he did not comply. Hugh has now consulted you, asking whether he does indeed have a right to hunt on Fannie's farm. Regrettably, Hugh's father, Harry, has recently died, leaving all of his property to the Sons of Knute, his fraternal lodge. Please give your conclusion as to Hugh's rights, discussing all relevant legal issues fully.

Question 2 (50 minutes suggested time). On January 1, 1998, Vernon Vance agreed to sell his house in the State of Tension to Patty Perry for $150,000. They signed a written agreement of sale (which was sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds). Patty gave Vernon $10,000 as earnest money. The only reference in the agreement to the time of performance was as follows:

The parties agree that closing will occur on March 1, 1998. If either party desires an extension of time, he or she may have up to 30 additional days by paying the other party $500 on or before March 1, 1998. These times shall be strictly adhered to.

Patty ordered a title report on the property on February 15, 1998. She received it on February 20. The report showed an easement, owned by the Tension Electric Co., for a high-voltage power transmission line over the rear ten feet of Vernon's lot. (No power line has ever actually been put in place there, so there was nothing visible on the ground to suggest the existence of the easement. The actual electric power serving Vernon's house is distributed underground from a buried line in the street in front of the house.) The contract made no mention of the power line easement; Vernon had not even been aware of its existence. No other title defects were disclosed by the title report.

Patty contacted Vernon on February 25 and informed him of the easement. She stated that she would not buy his house unless the easement was removed. Vernon immediately began negotiating with Tension Electric Co. for a release of the easement. However, he had not reached any agreement with the electric company by March 1. On that date, Patty called Vernon and advised him that she was "canceling the sale" and wanted her earnest money back.

On March 10, in return for Vernon's payment of $5,000, Tension Electric Co. released its power line easement. Vernon immediately called Patty and told her that he was ready to close on the sale, but Patty refused to discuss it with him.

Vernon has now filed an action for specific performance of the contract, and Patty has filed a counterclaim for return of her $10,000 earnest money. What is the proper resolution of this litigation? Discuss all relevant issues fully.