In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a tenacre tract in the center that was designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the 10-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes."Assume for this question only that Pete has announced his intention of erecting a fast-food restaurant on the 10-acre tract and that Sarah has filed an action to enjoin Pete. If Sarah wins, it will be because
Sarah has an equitable servitude concerning the use of the tract. Sarah, as a taxpayer, has legal interest in the use of the tract.  Sarah is a creditor beneficiary of Oscar's promise with respect to the tract. Pete is not a bona fide purchaser