In 2021, Tom Clark, Dick Clark, and Harry Clark were looking for a location for a laundry business. They signed a purchase agreement to buy a bulling owned by Prime Lands Associates for $ 1 million and deposited $250,000 in escrow until the time of the final purchase. The agreement contained a clause requiring an environmental assessment of the property. This study, which was done later, indicated the presence of tricholoroethene and other chemicals used in dry cleaning, and it recommended further study of the contamination. Because of this issue, the bank would not provide financine for the purchase. When the deal fell apart, the Prime Lands sued for breach of contract. The Clarks sought the return of their $ 250,000 deposit and rescission of the contract. Clarks argues that the contracting parties were mutually mistaken as to the condition of the property. Do the Clarks have a good argument for rescission? a No, Prime Lands can keep $ 115000 b. Yes, the contracting parties were mutually mistaken as to the conction on the propery. c .No, Prime Lands can caim that the parties were not mutually mistaken. d. No. Prime Lands can enforce the agreement against Clarks although they were mistaken