A prescriptive easement requires proof that the use of the easement was hostile and adverse to the owner of the property crossed by the easement, while express easement and easement by implication require proof of that property owner’s express or implied consent to the easement. Here, the trial court’s statement of decision found that plaintiff had proved an easement by all three theories. As the defendant could not both consent and not consent, the statement of decision was inherently inconsistent and had to be reversed. The judgment could not be affirmed on the theory of express grant since the evidence of such a grant was solely pre-sale contract statements which were excludable under the parol evidence rule since the deed clearly did not convey an easement. And the trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs to amend to state a claim for easement by implication without giving defendant the chance to introduce evidence showing that the claimed easement was not necessary.