Please read the case and answer the following questions:1. Describe what happened in the case? What did the court decide?2. Was there a contract between the parties? If so, list all the elements of the contract you can identify from the court decision. Are any elements missing?3. Why did the Plaintiff want to rescind the contract (didn't the money damages fully compensate the Plaintiff)?4. Is the contract unilateral or bilateral? Case Story:The Buck Doesn't Stop Here (at Slip B1)FactsEdgar Buck owns Rookie IV, a $6 million 61-foot boat requiring a dock slip 20 feet in width. Buck's daughter Susanne owns ZAN, LCC, and Buck has authority to act on behalf of ZAN. Susanne wanted a waterfront lot to build a home, and Buck wanted a boat slip out of the Intercoastal Waterway where the boat regularly sustained damage. ZAN (Buck) agreed to purchase a slip for Buck's boat and lot 3 for Susanne. Just prior to the closing, Buck discovered that the slip designated as B1 was actually two slips, B1 and B2 and Rookie IV would not fit into B1. Buck was informed by Ripley Cove's agent and later its closing attorney Dan David that the sellers owned B2 and that it would be no problem to give Buck the 20 foot clearance he needed and to place two pilings in the adjoining slip. Buck then agreed to close on the property. It was later discovered that at the time of the closing, Ripley Cove no longer owned B2. Since Rookie IV could not fit into the slip, ZAN sued for rescission of the contract for the lot and slip and damages. The trial court determined that ZAN proved its claims, awarded $10,000 for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation but refused to rescind the contract. ZAN appealed.DecisionJudgment for ZAN. The main purpose of the contract was to provide Buck with a slip for Rookie IV. Thus ZAN was entitled to rescission of the contract in toto, both the slip and the land, despite the parties' lack of dispute regarding the upland parcel. A breach of contract claim warranting rescission of the contract must be so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the purpose of the contract. Such was the nature of the breach in this case. [ZAN, LLC v. Ripley Cove, LLC, 751 S.E.2d 664 (S.C. App. 2013)]