A chef had long operated a restaurant in a building leased on a yearly basis from the owner. In addition to seating within the building, the restaurant had outdoor seating on a patio in the back of the building, which was permitted under the terms of the lease. Across the alley from the restaurant, a private residence was sold. The buyer, who occupied the premises, had two properly licensed dogs that he had acquired and trained for personal and home protection after being the victim of a home-invasion robbery in the same neighborhood. The buyer frequently permitted the dogs to run free within his fenced yard where the dogs, in addition to barking incessantly, would urinate and defecate within the view of the restaurant's patrons. The restaurant experienced a decrease in business attributable to the presence of the dogs. Without contacting the buyer, the chef initiated a lawsuit that alleges that the dogs constitute a private nuisance. Which of the following is the buyer's best argument against liability?
A. The chef did not own the property on which the restaurant operated.
B. The chef did not suffer a physical harm from the presence of the dogs.
C. The chef had not tried to resolve the matter before filing the action.
D. The buyer had acquired the dogs for his personal protection.