Aseller entered into a written contract with a vintner on april 4, whereby the seller agreed to convey a vineyard to the vintner for $2 million. the terms of the contract set the closing date as june 1. at the time the seller entered into the agreement with the vintner, the seller had no interest in the vineyard. on april 15, the seller entered into a written agreement with a landowner, whom the seller believed to be the owner of the vineyard. according to the terms of the agreement, the landowner was to convey the vineyard to the seller on or before may 25. another term of the agreement stated "time is of the essence."on may 24, the landowner conveyed his interest in the vineyard to the seller. when the seller went to record the deed, she discovered from records in the recorder's office that the landowner held clear title to only seven-eighths of the vineyard. it took some time for the seller to remove the cloud from the title and procure ownership in full of the vineyard. she finally did so on august 1, and on that day she tendered a warranty deed to the vineyard to the vintner. the vintner refused to tender $2 million or any other sum to the seller, asserting that the seller had broken her agreement by failing to close on june 1. the seller then sued the vintner for specific performance. if the vintner prevails, what is the likely reason? a title was unmarketable, because the seller did not own the vineyard at the time she entered into the contract. b title was unmarketable, because the seller only owned seven-eighths of the vineyard on the closing date. c time was not of the essence in the seller-vintner contract. d a two-month delay in closing is determined to be unreasonable.