Susie and Sam Have Significant Funds Invested with a Stock

Susie and Sam have significant funds invested with a stock broker named Will and also with other brokers.Susie and Sam decided to divorce.Susie was really interested in investments,so the divorce decree provided that Susie would retain "all investment accounts," and Sam would receive a "cash settlement" from funds the parties had in the bank.Six months after the divorce was final,it was discovered that Will had absconded to parts unknown with all the money invested with him.Susie could have withdrawn the funds at the time of the divorce,before Will left town,but she had no reason for concern and left the funds there for investment purposes.After discovering Will's wrongdoing,Susie asked Sam to renegotiate the divorce agreement,but he refused.Which of the following is the most likely result of their dispute if the court follows the decision of the court in Simkin v.Blank,discussed in the text?

A) The original divorce agreement will be rescinded, and the parties will be required to renegotiate the agreement because Susie and Sam were mutually mistaken in regard to investing with Will.
B) The original divorce agreement will be rescinded, and the parties will be required to renegotiate the agreement because the investment accounts with Will were a significant basis of the divorce agreement, and Will's fraud caused termination of that contract.
C) The original divorce agreement will be rescinded, and the parties will be required to renegotiate the agreement because, regardless of whether or not Will was guilty of fraud, the end result is that Susie did not receive the benefit of her bargain.
D) The original divorce agreement will be enforced only in part because based on their mutual mistake in regard to investing with Will, the parties will be required to renegotiate the part of the contract involving the investments with Will.
E) The original divorce agreement will be enforced.