Essay #1 Environmental Law/Contracts (3 parts) Part 1. Shocked by the asking prices of available conventional real estate in the Portland area, your employer is considering buying & developing a "brownfields" parcel in North Portland. Prepare a memo discussing the pros and cons of acquiring and building on a brownfields site versus a conventional site. 25 points Part 2. Russel Sprout just graduated with a BA from UP. Russel visited Tokyo last year and was most impressed with Japanese food and especially a number of an upscale vegetable stores. He appreciated Japan's reverence for fruits and vegetables and decided to open an upscale fruit and vegetable store in Portland. Russel calculated that he would be successful if his prices were just a tad above Whole Foods prices. Russel personally visited all the farms who he purchased from . Russel found what he thought was an ideal spot to rent in North Portland with plenty of parking. Unfortunately, he didn't have plenty of customers, and no repeat visitors (who were no doubt upset by the prices). Russel did have a lot of time on his hands and decided to make some changes. Locked into a year's lease Russel decided to change his \"business model.\" Russel took down the vegetables sign and hung up a green neon light announcing both recreational and medical pot for sale. With clever marketing and ample parking, Russel's sales took off. Russel was actually great at sales and his store was soon firmly \"in the black.\" Russel's landlord had a mortgage from Wells Fargo bank, which unfortunately for Russel was located right down the block. Wells Fargo didn't appreciate Russel's new pot business. A preprinted standard clause in the mortgage prohibited the landlord from \"allowing illegal activities\" on the premises. In the Bank's view under federal law pot is still a class 1 narcotic and their customer's tenant is breaking federal laws by selling pot even though it is perfectly legal under Oregon state law. Wells Fargo threatens the landlord with cancellation of the mortgage and threatens to declare the entire balance of the mortgage due and owing if the landlord doesn't eject Russel's' pot store. Russel doesn't want to move. Part 2 Russel argues that since he is not a party to the mortgage, he is not bound by the illegality clause. Russel argues that the Bank could only prevent the landlord from selling pot, not a tenant. Evaluate Russel's contract interpretation. (ls Russel correct or nor? (Explain why) (15 points) Part 3 Remember Fran from the Mid-term exam who lost the outdoor tables for her restaurant? Fran rented a new space and started a new cafe in St. John's. The cafe is just open for breakfast and lunch. Although there are no outdoor tables, there is a little parking lot which is handy for people who want to get in and out quickly in the morning. The parking lot is between two buildings half, on one parcel of land (#23 College St.) and half on the neighboring parcel (#25 College St). Over the years the tenants have had some squabbles over parking. Currently the neighboring building is rented out to a Children's Martial Arts School. Parents park their cars in the lot when they bring their kids to the school in the afternoon and evening. This works well because Fran's cafe closes at 2 pm. The school doesn't open until noon and seldom has many visitors before 2pm. Fran is friendly with the Marrial Arts School owner and they sign a \"Memorandum of Understanding\" to define their joint use of the parking lot. It details how Fran's customers can use the entire lot in the morning and the School can use the entire lot in the afternoon and evening. About a year later the School owner decides to move to Hawaii. The new tenant operates a franchised Preschool. Parents now park in the joint lot between 7-8 am., leaving little or no room for Fran's customers. Fran presents the Memorandum of Understanding to her new neighbor. He claims that he is not bound by the agreement. Part 3: Is the Memorandum of Understanding a binding contract? Is the Preschool operator bound by the agreement? (explain why or why not) (10 points)