Kate enters into a valid, written contract with Lesley, a specialty automotive broker, pursuant to which Lesley agrees to locate a buyer for Kate's classic $1967$ Chevrolet Camaro. The car has a market value of $$80,000,$ and the contract between Kate and Lesley requires Kate to pay Lesley $10\%$ of the market value of the car $($i$.$e$.,$ $$8,000)$ if Lesley finds a buyer for the car. Before Lesley can find a buyer, however, Kate's car is stolen out of her garage. When Kate tells Lesley what happened, Lesley still demands that Kate must follow through with their contract and sues Kate for breach of contract. What is Kate's best argument that she is no longer required to perform under the contract?

Group of answer choices

The contract is void because it's purpose has become frustrated.

The theft of the car caused a mutual rescission of the contract.

The theft of the car constituted an accord and satisfaction of Kate's obligations under the contract.

The contract is void because it is impossible to perform.