Please answer the following 3 questions 185 words each. Question 1. Legality of a Deed:A deed contains the following description: Together with an easement for access purposes from State Highway 17 southerly over the existing driveway located on the back lot partitioned and conveyed to Marie Rotter and said easement to extend easterly over the N. 20 feet of the frontage lot portioned and conveyed to Marie Rotter to the front lot above described of grantee. Is the description sufficient for legal purposes? Why or why not? Please explain. Kampinen v. Bierman, 617 N.W. 2d 908 (Wis. App. 2000). Question 2 Contract Evaluation: Theresa S. Polk owned 181 acres of land in Polk County, and she listed the property for sale with a real estate agent at a sale price of $1,299,000. The following events transpired: January 24, 2005 Avon made an offer to buy the property. February 2 and 3, 2005 Polk rejected the offer and two made counter offers with some differences. However, both provided that Avon had until 5 pm on February 7, 2005 to accept or reject them stating, “Seller counters Buyer’s offer (to accept the counteroffer, Buyer must sign or initial the counter offered terms and deliver a copy of the acceptance to the Seller by 5 p.m. on 2/7/05).” February 4, 2005: Avon made another offer which altered the material terms of the counteroffers. Polk did not respond to the February 4 offer, and Avon signed both of Polk’s counter offers and delivered them before the February 7 deadline. Avon also delivered a $25,000 deposit check to Polk’s attorney who accepted the check but eventually wrote “VOID” on it instead of cashing it. When Polk refused to per her duties under the signed counteroffers, Avon filed a suit seeking specific performance. Was there a contract formed? Why or why not? Please explain. Polk v. BHRGU Avon Properties, LLC, 946 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. App. 2006) Question 3, Title Defects:MGD purchased a policy of title insurance from First American Title Company. The policy generally insured against defects in title to property MGD owned in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana that might affect the marketability of the title. After MGD purchased the property, the learned that it had been under lease to the United States government during World War II for use as a bombing range. Although the lease had expired years before the purchase, MGD discovered that the remnants of bombs were still on the property. Because of the potential hazards from the bombs, officials in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana refused to issue permits to develop a residential subdivision on the property. MGD filed a claim with its title insurer because the land could not be sold because the title was unmarketable and the land could not be used for its intended purpose. Is the title insurer liable for a defect in title? Why or why not? Please explain. MGD Partners Ltd. Liability Corp v. First American Title Ins. Co. 440 Fed. Appx. 368, 2011 WL 3962568 (5th Circ. 2011).