Owens owned Whiteacre, a dwelling house situated on a two-acre lot in an area zoned for single-family residential uses only. Although it was not discernible from the outside, Whiteacre had been converted by Owens from a single-family house to a structure that contained three separate apartments, in violation of the zoning ordinance. Further, the conversion was in violation of the building code. Owens and Peters entered into a valid written contract for the purchase and sale of Whiteacre. The contract provided that Owens was to convey to Peters a marketable title. The contract was silent as to zoning. Peters had fully inspected Whiteacre. Prior to the closing, Peters learned that Whiteacre did not conform to the zoning ordinance and refused to close although Owens was ready, willing, and able to perform his contract obligations. Owens brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Peters. In that action, Owens should 
win, because Owens was able to convey a marketable title.  win, because Peters was charged with knowledge of the zoning ordinance prior to entering the contract.  lose, because the illegal conversion of Whiteacre creates the risk of litigation.  lose, because the illegal conversion of Whiteacre was done by Owens rather than by a predecessor. 