Leaseco owned Blackacre, a tract of 100 acres. Six years ago, Leaseco leased a one-acre parcel, Oneacre, located in the northeasterly corner of Blackacre, for a term of 30 years, to Eatco. Eatco intended to and did construct a fast-food restaurant on Oneacre. The lease provided that: 1. Eatco was to maintain Oneacre and improvements thereon, to maintain full insurance coverage on Oneacre, and to pay all taxes assessed against Oneacre. 2. Leaseco was to maintain the access roads and the parking lot areas platted on those portions of Blackacre that adjoined Oneacre and to permit the customers of Eatco to use them in common with the customers of the other commercial users of the remainder of Blackacre. 3. Eatco was to pay its share of the expenses for the off-site improvements according to a stated formula. Five years ago, Leaseco sold Oneacre to Jones, an investor; the conveyance was made subject to the lease to Eatco. However, Jones did not assume the obligations of the lease and Leaseco retained the remainder of Blackacre. Since that conveyance five years ago, Eatco has paid rent to Jones. Eatco refused to pay its formula share of the off-site improvement costs as provided in the lease. Leaseco brought an appropriate action against Eatco to recover such costs. The most likely outcome would be in favor of 
Leaseco, because the use of the improvements by the customers of Eatco imposes an implied obligation on Eatco.  Leaseco, because the conveyance of Oneacre to Jones did not terminate Eatco's covenant to contribute.  Eatco, because the conveyance of Oneacre to Jones terminated the privity of estate between Leaseco and Eatco.  Eatco, because Jones, as Eatco's landlord, has the obligation to pay the maintenance costs by necessary implication. 
Question: Leaseco owned Blackacre, a tract of 100 acres. Six years ago, Leaseco leased a one-acre parcel, Oneacre, located in the northeasterly corner of Blackacre, for a term of 30 years, to Eatco. Eatco intended to and did construct a fast-food restaurant on Oneacre. The lease provided that: 1. Eatco was to maintain Oneacre and improvements thereon, to maintain full insurance coverage on Oneacre, and to pay all taxes assessed against Oneacre. 2. Leaseco was to maintain the access roads and the parking lot areas platted on those portions of Blackacre that adjoined Oneacre and to permit the customers of Eatco to use them in common with the customers of the other commercial users of the remainder of Blackacre. 3. Eatco was to pay its share of the expenses for the off-site improvements according to a stated formula. Five years ago, Leaseco sold Oneacre to Jones, an investor; the conveyance was made subject to the lease to Eatco. However, Jones did not assume the obligations of the lease and Leaseco retained the remainder of Blackacre. Since that conveyance five years ago, Eatco has paid rent to Jones. Eatco refused to pay its formula share of the off-site improvement costs as provided in the lease. Leaseco brought an appropriate action against Eatco to recover such costs. The most likely outcome would be in favor of 
A. Leaseco, because the use of the improvements by the customers of Eatco imposes an implied obligation on Eatco. 
B. Leaseco, because the conveyance of Oneacre to Jones did not terminate Eatco's covenant to contribute. 
C. Eatco, because the conveyance of Oneacre to Jones terminated the privity of estate between Leaseco and Eatco. 
D. Eatco, because Jones, as Eatco's landlord, has the obligation to pay the maintenance costs by necessary implication. 
Answer: