1. assume instead that Melissa responds to Lisa's concern about marketability simply by agreeing to release praying from the contract and returning his deposit period two months later Melissa sells the property to Lone Star gas for $700,000. Lone Star gas immediately brings a quiet title action to address the issue of melissa's rights in the oil, gas, and minerals, and the court determines how the right to transfer as a result of adverse possession. Lonestar does some testing and confirms that there is a large natural gas reserve in the shell beneath the property, making the property worth at least $4 million. Can frank sue Lisa for making him miss out on a lost opportunity? After all, if he closed on the contract with Melissa, he would own a highly valuable natural gas property.
2. Suppose that a closing Lisa, instead of worrying about the lack of marketable title, simply reviewed the facts and agreed that Melissa did have a right to convey the full fee simple absolute title to the property, including rates to oil, gas, and minerals. As a result of Lisa's conclusion, frank closes on the purchase. Two days later, Anthony sues frank to quiet title to his reserved rights. Anthony sues because Lone Star gas surprised him with an offer to buy his rights for $400,000, provided he can demonstrate good title. Lonestar is acquiring oil, gas, and mineral rights from a number of property owners in the area, as it plans to undertake a major hydro fracking operation. Assume that the court determines that Anthony has a valid reservation and that Melissa did not acquire those rights by adverse possession or any other means. In such a case, can frank sue Lisa for damages as a result of Lisa being wrong about the marketability of melissa's title to the property at the time of closing?