To impress his new girlfriend, a man executed and delivered to the girlfriend a warranty deed to a vacant cabin. The girlfriend promptly and properly recorded her deed. A month later, the girlfriend moved into the cabin and has occupied the property since. At the time of the conveyance to the girlfriend, the man did not actually own the cabin. His mother was the record title holder, but she had always told the man the cabin would one day be his. Later, the mother died, and her will devised the cabin to the man. Shortly thereafter, the man lost his job and needed money, so he sold the cabin for its full value to a neighbor by warranty deed. The neighbor promptly and properly recorded but did not conduct a title search before accepting the deed. Both the girlfriend and the neighbor now claim ownership of the cabin. The jurisdiction in which the cabin is located has the following statute: “No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice unless the conveyance is recorded.” Who has title to the cabin?

To fight drug abuse, a state enacted a statute forbidding the selling of model airplane glue to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. The statute also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Neither the legislature nor the courts of the state have abolished the common law tort defense of assumption of the risk. The owner of a hobby shop in the state sold a large tube of airplane glue to a 15-year-old boy who reasonably appeared to be at least 18 years old. The boy had received drug education in his school, as mandated by the statute, including coverage of the dangers of glue sniffing. The boy understood the anti-drug instruction, but he wanted to experience it for himself. The boy sniffed the glue repeatedly and suffered permanent brain damage. If the boy’s parents file suit on the boy’s behalf against the store owner, for whom is the court likely to rule?

A 14-year-old was the youngest licensed pilot in the state. On a foggy day when pilots were being advised to fly only if necessary, the pilot took his plane out so that he could fly low over the football field where his friends were practicing. When he attempted to land on his return to the airport, he ran off the runway due to the fog and damaged an executive’s airplane, which was in the parking area. If the executive sues the pilot for damage to his airplane and prevails, what is the likely reason?

A dancer rented a small building for her dance school and subleased some of the building space to two other tenants. The dancer paid $5,000 per month to the owner and charged her subtenants $1,000 per month each. After the dancer had been in the building for five years, the owner called her on the phone with a proposal to purchase the building. The dancer and the owner agreed on the call that the dancer would purchase the building for a price of $300,000, to be paid in monthly installments of $5,000 over a five-year period. It was further agreed that when the dancer had paid $180,000 of the total price, the owner would deliver the deed to the dancer. One month later, the dancer spent $5,000 cleaning the mirrors and decorating the studio and dressing rooms in her dance school. Over the next three years, the dancer hired another dance teacher and had him hold classes in one of the spaces formerly occupied by one of the subtenants. She also raised the monthly rent she charged the other subtenant to $1,500. Three years after the agreement with the owner, the dancer demanded that the owner convey the building by delivery of a deed. The owner refused, denying that he had entered into any agreement with the dancer concerning the purchase of the property. The dancer brings an action for specific performance against the owner. If the owner prevails, what is the likely reason?

A father conveyed his land to his son by warranty deed. The deed stated that the son paid $125,000 for the land but, in fact, the son had not. However, the son and the father agreed orally that the son would not record the deed until he paid the father the $125,000. The son neither paid the father nor recorded the deed for three years, at which time the property values in the area began to climb rapidly. Wishing to turn a fast profit, the son recorded the deed from the father and one week later conveyed the land to a buyer for $200,000. The buyer promptly recorded the deed. When the father discovered what had transpired, he filed a lawsuit, and the court determined that the son owed the father $125,000. Unfortunately, the son and his $200,000 from the buyer are nowhere to be found. The father asked the court to levy on the land, which the buyer opposed. The jurisdiction in which the land is located has the following statute: “No interest in land shall be good against a subsequent purchaser for value, without notice, unless the interest is recorded.” Which of the following is the buyer’s best defense against the levy?

A mountain lodge catered to cross-country skiing enthusiasts. Every winter, the owner of the lodge, along with his assistants, marked and groomed trails on his extensive lands. He charged a fee for a day’s use of the trails. He also supplied equipment for those who needed it and provided lodging and meals for skiers staying more than one day. A woman on her first cross-country skiing outing was striding along a groomed trail when, with a loud crack, the rotten limb of a huge oak under which the trail passed separated from the tree because of the load of ice and snow it bore. It came crashing down on top of the woman, killing her instantly. The woman’s heirs brought a wrongful death action against the lodge owner in a jurisdiction applying traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land. If the lodge owner prevails, what is the most likely explanation?

On October 15, the owner of a local tree farm telephoned the owner of a small gas station and offered to sell the gas station 100 cut evergreen trees for resale as Christmas trees in the gas station’s parking lot for $2,500, not including delivery charges. The gas station owner accepted immediately. On October 17, the gas station owner sent the tree farm an e-mail confirming the deal for the sale of 100 trees for $2,500, and stating that it anticipated a waiver of the delivery charges because of the size of the order. On December 3, the tree farm owner again telephoned the gas station and stated that, due to a tree loss caused by a recent storm, the tree farm would not be able to supply any trees to the gas station. If the gas station brings suit against the tree farm and the tree farm asserts the Statute of Frauds as a defense, will the gas station prevail?

A candlemaker e-mailed her usual supplier of fragrance oils, asking, “What is your price for a 25-lb. drum of peach-scented fragrance oil?” The supplier replied by e-mail that it would sell the candlemaker the oil for $500. The candlemaker wrote back, “Your offer is hereby accepted, provided that you agree to a 5% discount since I have proven myself to be a loyal customer.” What should the candlemaker’s reply concerning the 5% discount be characterized as?

In exchange for a share of the profits, a woman conveyed her densely forested tract of land to a logging company by warranty deed. The logging company did not record its deed. Afraid her friends and family would think she made a bad business decision, the woman kept the transaction with the logging company to herself. Prior to felling any trees, the logging company abandoned its project and returned the deed to the woman. Then, in exchange for half the tract’s market value, the woman executed and delivered a quitclaim deed to the tract to her friend. The friend intended to record the deed but forgot. Subsequently, the logging company decided to proceed with its original logging project on the land. The jurisdiction has the following recording act: A conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded. In a suit between the logging company and the friend to quiet title, who is likely to prevail?

An inexperienced worker who was instructed to clean the floors of a store mixed ammonia and chlorine bleach in a large pail. Both he and a customer who was standing nearby were overcome by fumes and suffered lung damage. The customer sued the worker, alleging negligence. In defense, the worker presented uncontroverted evidence that he could not read the warning labels on the containers and that, while he knew he was mixing ammonia and bleach, he had never been made aware of the danger of mixing the two chemicals. Nevertheless, the jury found him liable for the customer’s injuries. If the worker challenges the verdict on appeal, how should the appellate court rule?