Srijan owned a large piece of land, called Greyland, in an area that he believed would soon be re-zoned to allow for industrial developments. In preparation for a business venture that he planned to launch, he borrowed $1 000 000 from the Bank of London and in exchange granted a first mortgage over Greyland. At that time, Greyland had a market value of $1 700 000. Unfortunately, the economy soon went into recession and Srijan's financial situation took a turn for the worse. In an attempt to keep his business alive, he borrowed $300 000 from the Bank of Ottawa, and in exchange granted a second mortgage over Greyland. As the recession grew deeper, however, Srijan found it impossible to repay either of his loans. The Bank of London then foreclosed on the land. At the time of foreclosure, it seemed as though all three parties were losers. Srijan lost his property, the Bank of Ottawa lost its security, and the market value of the land that the Bank of London obtained through foreclosure had fallen to $900 000. Within a couple of years, however, the recession had passed and property values had skyrocketed. Consequently, the Bank of London was eventually able to sell Greyland to an unrelated corporation for $2 000 000. Srijan and the Bank of Ottawa now feel cheated. They note that the Bank of London received $2 000 000 even though it lost only $1 000 000 on its loan. Their lawyers argue that it would be fairer to split the $2 000 000 three ways: (i) $1 000 000 to the Bank of London, (ii) $300 000 to the Bank of Ottawa, and (iii) $700 000 to Srijan. That approach would put each of the parties back into their original positions. Will a court agree with that argument? Explain your answer. As you do so, think about the risks that each of the parties accepted by entering into the mortgage agreements.