Suppose that Stan is selling his historic house in Springfield, Illinois. Beth, a potential buyer, is interested in the house and tours it on October 1. Beth really likes the house, especially its antique chandelier attached to the ceiling of the foyer, which she comments about as Stan is showing her around the house. Stan tells Beth that the chandelier is original to the historic house. Beth tells Stan that she is going to speak with her bank and hopes to buy the house. On October 10, Stan and Beth enter into a contract for the sale of house, with closing to take place on November 15. The contract does not mention anything about the chandelier in the foyer. On November 14, Beth goes to the house for her final walk-through and inspection of the house. She immediately notices that Stan has removed the antique chandelier from the foyer and installed a cheap modern light. Beth informs Stan that he must reinstall the chandelier or else she will not go through with the purchase. Stan refuses. If this dispute ultimately results in a lawsuit, who is likely to win: Beth, who argues that the chandelier goes with the house, or Stan, who argues that the chandelier is his own property that he has a right to remove? Why so? O Stan, because he is free to remove any property that he added to the house before transferring possession of it. O Stan, because on these facts, the contract said nothing about including the chandelier in the sale when ownership of the house was transferred. O Beth, because on these facts, the chandelier is a fixture and is therefore treated as real property that goes with the land when it is sold. Beth, because Stan made an untrue assertion of fact by remaining silent as Beth commented on the chandelier during her tour of the house.