s 6 and 7 are based on the same fact pattern: On February 26, Cell and Purch entered into a written contract for the sale of Cellacre, a parcel of land improved with a residence. The sale price was $50,000, with $5,000 paid on signing the contract. The balance was to be paid on delivery of the deed prior to April 15, and Cell was to remain in possession until that time. On March 10, prior to the closing, the house was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. The house was worth $40,000 and the land $10,000. Neither Cell nor Purch had insurance. After the fire, Purch asserted that the sale was rescinded because the subject matter of the transaction had been substantially destroyed. She also demanded the return of her deposit. Cell counterclaimed for specific performance. In a jurisdiction which has enacted the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act, which of the following is the most likely result in the actions between Purch and Cell? Question 7 options: a) Purch is required to purchase Cellacre without any abatement of the purchase price. b) Purch is required to purchase Cellacre, but with an abatement of the purchase price equal to the diminution in value which resulted from the damage. c) Purch is not required to purchase Cellacre, but is not entitled to the return of her $5,000 deposit. d) Purch is not required to purchase Cellacre, and is entitled to the return of her $5,000 deposit