Les leased a barn to his neighbor, Tom, for a term of three years. Tom took possession of the barn and used it for his farming purposes. The lease made Les responsible for structural repairs to the barn, unless they were made necessary by actions of Tom. One year later, Les conveyed the barn and its associated land to Lottie "subject to the lease to Tom." Tom paid the next month's rent to Lottie. The next day a portion of an exterior wall of the barn collapsed because of rot in the interior structure of the wall. The wall had appeared to be sound, but a competent engineer, on inspection, would have discovered its condition. Neither Lottie nor Tom had the barn inspected by an engineer. Tom was injured as a result of the collapse of the wall. Les had known that the wall was dangerously weakened by rot and needed immediate repairs, but had not told Tom or Lottie. There is no applicable statute. Tom brought an appropriate action against Les to recover damages for the injuries he sustained. Lottie was not a party. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning the outcome of this action? 
Tom should lose, because Lottie assumed all of Les's obligations by reason of Tom's attornment to her.  Tom should recover, because there is privity between lessor and lessee and it cannot be broken unilaterally.  Tom should recover, because Les knew of the danger but did not warn Tom.  Tom should lose, because he failed to inspect the barn. 