The next week Lily saw an article in the local newspaper featuring Andrew and McMaster and the discovery of the rare 1812 chair worth $10,000.00. She immediately recognized the chair. Lily believes that she still has a binding agreement to buy the chair for $300.00, but is willing to pay the $500.00 amount in the invoice if necessary. She does not feel that the agreement to terminate her purchase agreement with McMaster is binding since he lied to her about his mother and she agreed only because she felt pressured and threatened by his belligerent phone calls. She commences an action against McMaster and requests: (1) a declaration that the agreement to release McMaster is null and void; (ii) rectification of the invoice and specific performance of the agreement for the purchase and sale of the chair for $300.00, or alternatively specific performance of the purchase agreement for $500.00; 2 (iii) an injunction to prohibit the sale of the chair to Andrew; (iv) damages for breach of contract in the amount of $9,700.00; (iv) punitive damages of $20,000.00. Required: Examine Lily's case, McMaster's position in defending the lawsuit, the applicable principles and likely result of the litigation. (ii) While the lawsuit is pending, a fire breaks out in McMaster's store and the chair is destroyed. How does this affect the rights and obligations of the parties? Does the principle of frustration apply? (iii) Assume there is no fire. However, while the lawsuit is pending, McMaster has the chair appraised for insurance purposes. The appraiser confirms that the chair is not an authentic antique, but is a simple replica which is worth $75.00. Both Lily and Andrew find out about the appraisal and both now refuse to purchase the chair. McMaster comes to you and asks that you advise him if he has any legal basis to commence an action against either Lily or Andrew and, if so, what he will be entitled to claim