1. LOGISTICS On Course Page: General Final Exam Info, Office Hours, Review Session Times, etc. Registration: – Remember to Check System Before Registration Time for Seats Remaining in Courses – More Business Associations Seats Being Added – I’ll Be Here Today Until 6pm & Tomorrow from 8am Boston

2. Review Problem 6F(S152) Opinion/Dissent State Supreme Court in Prior Case: – Where Commercial Lease Required Landlord’s Consent to Transfer, the Landlord could not withhold consent Unreasonably; – Did not rule on whether T could expressly waive this reasonableness requirement Lease Here: “Tenant may not transfer its interest in this lease without permission of the Landlord, which permission maybe withheld for any reason at all.”

3. Review Problem 6F(S152) Opinion/Dissent Two Issues: (A)Is Reasonableness Requirement Waivable? (DENALI Today) (B)If Not, Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent Reasonable (EVERGLADES Tomorrow)

4. DENALI: Rev.Prob.6F(A): Is Reasonableness Requirement re Consent to Transfer Waivable? Denali Caribou

5. EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B): Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent Reasonable? EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

6. EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B): Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent Reasonable? L refuses T attempt to transfer lease rights to PP; “no problem” w financial credentials BUT: 1.CEO of PP was “outspoken public advocate” of political positions L “sharply disagreed with” 2.5 years earlier, had denied same lease to PP Task: Should provide substantive arguments for and against each of the two reasons at issue – Could choose to follow cases we read, (e.g., Funk limiting to economic Qs) but need to defend choice – Could try to craft new general rules, then follow

7. EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B): Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent Reasonable: Political Differences L refuses T attempt to transfer lease rights to PP; “no problem” w financial credentials BUT: 1.CEO of PP was “outspoken public advocate” of political positions L “sharply disagreed with” 2.5 years earlier, had denied same lease to PP

8. EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B): Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent Reasonable: Prior Rejection L refuses T attempt to transfer lease rights to PP; “no problem” w financial credentials BUT: 1.CEO of PP was “outspoken public advocate” of political positions L “sharply disagreed with” 2.5 years earlier, L had denied same lease to PP

9. Rev.Prob.6F(B) & Reasonableness: Note on Yeshiva Univ. (Note 3 P706) L wanted to exclude Planned Parenthood b/c of religious concerns re providing contraception Language from case (“must be relevant to any Landlord”) suggests religious concerns not OK. BUT also issue of inconsistent application by L – Birth control courses taught in Hospital run by L – So doesn’t look like bona fide religious concern – Asked if hospital courses were embarassment to L, official replied, “Well, they're in the Bronx."

10. GLACIER: Rev.Prob.6G: Evidence of Discrimination Glacier Mountain Lion

11. GLACIER: Rev.Prob.6G: Evidence of Discrimination Possible Discriminatory Reasons for Rejection – Religion (Not Jewish Enough) – Inter-Racial or Inter-Faith Relationship – Israeli Possible Non-Discriminatory Reasons? Significance of Specific Facts? – Rebecca Regularly wears Star of David – Chris wears an earring in the shape of a cross – Ben says “Black, Red, Green, Whatever. No Problem.” – Rebecca says “Part of the reason I left Israel is so I don’t have rabbis watching everything I do.”

12. GLACIER: Rev.Prob.6G: Evidence of Discrimination Other Evidence Supporting Discriminatory Reasons? Other Evidence Supporting Non-Discriminatory Reasons? Stronger Position Overall? Because?

13. Chapter 7: Easements 1.Overview & Terminology 2.Interpreting Language a.Easement v. Fee b.Scope of Express Easements 3.Implied Easements a.By Estoppel b.By Prescription c.By Implication and/or Necessity

14. Chapter 7: Easements Overview & Terminology Easement = Right to Use Land Owned by Someone Else for Specific Purpose (e.g., Right of Way) Basic Background Info in Readings Key Vocabulary: – Express v. Implied Easements – Positive v. Negative Easements – Appurtenant v. In Gross – Dominant Tenement (Holding) v. Servient Tenement