If A were to enter B's property under false pretenses to gather fruit, what would B's response be?

B's response to A's entry onto the property under false pretenses to gather fruit hinges on the notion of trespass. When someone enters another person's property without permission, especially under deceitful circumstances, this constitutes trespass. In this scenario, A not only invaded B's land but did so with the intent to deceive, which strengthens B's claim.

The law recognizes a property owner's right to control access to their land. B has the authority to enforce that right, including claiming trespass. This means B can seek damages for any harm caused by A's unlawful entry and can potentially prevent A from continuing to gather fruit. B's ability to claim damages arises from the invasion of their property rights, as A did not have permission to enter and was misleading in their actions.

In contrast, the other options do not reflect the established property rights that B holds in this situation. Allowing A to gather fruit or not using force if A is peaceful undermines B’s rights as a property owner. Such a stance would disregard the deception involved in A’s entry and would not support the protection of B’s property interests. Thus, the most appropriate response for B, given the circumstances, is to claim trespass and seek damages.