Pauline and Doris own adjacent parcels of land. On each of their parcels was a low-rise office building. The two office buildings were of the same height. Last year Doris decided to demolish the lowrise office building on her parcel and to erect a new high-rise office building of substantially greater height on the parcel as permitted by the zoning and building ordinances. She secured all the governmental approvals necessary to pursue her project. As Doris's new building was in the course of construction, Pauline realized that the shadows it would create would place her (Pauline's) building in such deep shade that the rent she could charge for space in her building would be substantially reduced. Pauline brought an appropriate action against Doris to enjoin the construction in order to eliminate the shadow problem and for damages. Pauline presented uncontroverted evidence that her evaluation as to the impact of the shadow on the fair rental value of her building was correct. There is no statute or ordinance (other than the building and zoning ordinances) that is applicable to the issues before the court. The court should 
grant to Pauline the requested injunction. award Pauline damages measured by the loss of rental value, but not an injunction.  grant judgment for Doris, because she had secured all the necessary governmental approvals for the new building.  grant judgment for Doris, because Pauline has no legal right to have sunshine continue to reach the windows of her building. 
Question: Pauline and Doris own adjacent parcels of land. On each of their parcels was a low-rise office building. The two office buildings were of the same height. Last year Doris decided to demolish the lowrise office building on her parcel and to erect a new high-rise office building of substantially greater height on the parcel as permitted by the zoning and building ordinances. She secured all the governmental approvals necessary to pursue her project. As Doris's new building was in the course of construction, Pauline realized that the shadows it would create would place her (Pauline's) building in such deep shade that the rent she could charge for space in her building would be substantially reduced. Pauline brought an appropriate action against Doris to enjoin the construction in order to eliminate the shadow problem and for damages. Pauline presented uncontroverted evidence that her evaluation as to the impact of the shadow on the fair rental value of her building was correct. There is no statute or ordinance (other than the building and zoning ordinances) that is applicable to the issues before the court. The court should 
A. grant to Pauline the requested injunction.
B. award Pauline damages measured by the loss of rental value, but not an injunction. 
C. grant judgment for Doris, because she had secured all the necessary governmental approvals for the new building. 
D. grant judgment for Doris, because Pauline has no legal right to have sunshine continue to reach the windows of her building. 
Answer: