Oxnard owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. At a time when Goldacre was in the adverse possession of Amos, Eric obtained the oral permission of Oxnard to use a portion of Goldacre as a road or driveway to reach adjoining land, Twin Pines, which Eric owned in fee simple. Thereafter, during all times relevant to this problem, Eric used this road across Goldacre regularly for ingress and egress between Twin Pines and a public highway. Amos quit possession of Goldacre before acquiring title by adverse possession. Without any further communication between Oxnard and Eric, Eric continued to use the road for a total period, from the time he first began to use it, sufficient to acquire an easement by prescription. Oxnard then blocked the road and refused to permit its continued use. Eric brought suit to determine his right to continue use of the road. Eric should (A) win, because his use was adverse to Amos and once adverse it continued adverse until some affirmative showing of a change.
(B) win, because Eric made no attempt to renew permission after Amos quit possession of Goldacre. 
(C) lose, because his use was with permission.
(D) lose, because there is no evidence that he continued adverse use for the required period after Amos quit possession.

Definitely C. Amos is irrelevant to the problem. Only Eric's use as to Oxnard is relevant, which was with permission and thus inadequate to meet the requirements of easement by prescription.

I agree with Jeff, C

C