With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Basler, 239 S.W.3d 687, 690 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (citing Beery v. Shinkle, 193 S.W.3d 435, 441 (Mo.App. W.D.2006)). This principle simply restates, of course, the criteria described in the first sentence of section 228.342. For this purpose, Mis souri courts have defined “strict necessity” as “ ‘the lack of a legally enforceable right to use a practicable way to and from a person’s land, either private or public.’” Id. (quoting Kirkpatrick v. Webb, 58 S.W.3d 903, 907 (Mo.App. S.D.2001)). Under this definition, if property has no physical access to a public road and no other legally enforceable right to use a practicable way to a public road (such as an express easement, for example), then strict necessity for a private road has been established. See, e.g., Beery, 193 S.W.3d at 441-42 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the parties stipulated that

A: holding that where an express easement created by agreement afforded a property owner a legally enforceable right of ingress and egress strict necessity under section 228342 is not established
B: holding that under oregon law an agreement must be supported by consideration to be legally enforceable
C: holding that purchaser did not take property subject to unrecorded easement created by private agreement
D: holding that the plaintiffs express easement of rightofway for ingress and egress over the defendants property would not be enlarged to allow the installation of an underground utility and telephone lines on the defendants property absent express provision for such although the plaintiffs deed restricted his lot to residential use
A.