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 After the fire, Purch asserted that the sale was rescinded because the subject matter of the transaction had been substantially destroyed.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 applies common law rules regarding risk of loss, which of the following arguments best supports Cell's position? Question 6 options: a) Purch's claim is without merit since the subject matter of the sale is a parcel of realty, and the parcel is still in existence. b) Purch had an insurable interest as a result of the purchase contract, and if she neglected to insure against casualty loss, she did so at her peril. c) Since Purch contracted to purchase the realty, she accepted the risk of any fluctuations in value which resulted from foreseeable natural phenomena. d) The doctrine of equitable conversion regards the purchaser as an owner