Jack owns a horseback riding club and Shiba sued to stop members of Jack's club from riding across her property. Jack claims that his club has an easement over Shiba's property based on a written agreement in 1995 between Jack and Shiba's predecessors to allow riding for 75 years. Although Shiba had notice of this agreement, she argues that the agreement was a license and that she has the right to revoke Jack's personal benefit. Which statement is correct?

Select one:a. Shiba cannot revoke Jack's benefit because the right to ride horses on Shiba's land is an easement.b. Shiba can revoke Jack's benefit because the license terminated when Shiba purchased the servient parcel without signing a new agreement with Jack.c. Shiba can revoke Jack's benefit because Jack's benefit was personal, and therefore no dominant parcel exists.d. Shiba cannot revoke Jack's benefit because there is an implied easement to ride horses on the servient parcel.