Hi there, pls help me with this qn! Thanks.

Assume that Jordan is the registered proprietor of the fee simple estate in a picturesque plot of land in Perth called 'Whiteacre'. Sam is good friends with Jordan. A few years ago, Sam purchased a licence from Jordan to 'walk around Whiteacre on Sunday mornings for exercise purposes'. [You can assume that this is indeed a contractual licence.] Last month, in return for a modest sum of money, Jordan agreed to the following terms drafted by Sam: 'Clause 1 . Sam has an easement to freely wander and walk around Whiteacre at all hours. Clause 2. Jordan, as the owner of Whiteacre, is hereby bound by a restrictive covenant not to build any new buildings on Whiteacre that may impede Sam's walks on Whiteacre'. Based on these limited facts, pick the most correct option. o Putting aside the validity issues of the so-called 'easement' in Clause 1 & 'restrictive covenant' in Clause 2, there seems to be no dominant tenement on these facts. o b. The burdens in Clause 1 & Clause 2 are unenforceable againstJordan because these burdens do not 'run with land' in equity or law o For the purposes of the 'restrictive covenant' in Clause 2, Sam's interest in Whiteacre constitutes the dominant tenement All other options are incorrect