Answer :
In this scenario, the key issue is whether Buhle is entitled to demand that Rita pay the purchase price for the slowcooker even though it is missing when Rita comes to collect it.
1. According to the general rule of contract law, the seller (Buhle) must deliver the goods to the buyer (Rita) as specified in the agreement. In this case, the agreement was for Rita to collect the slowcooker on 10 March 2024.
2. However, the missing slowcooker due to the burglary raises the issue of "impossibility of performance." If the subject matter of the contract (the slowcooker) is destroyed without the fault of either party, the contract becomes impossible to perform, and the parties are generally discharged from their obligations.
3. Buhle's argument that she and Rita had an agreement is valid, but the unforeseen circumstances of the burglary and the missing slowcooker constitute an impossibility that was beyond Buhle's control.
4. In this situation, Buhle is not entitled to demand that Rita pay the purchase price because the slowcooker is no longer available for delivery as agreed upon. Rita cannot be held responsible for paying for something that Buhle cannot provide due to circumstances beyond her control.
5. Therefore, based on the principle of impossibility of performance, Buhle cannot insist that Rita pay the purchase price for the missing slowcooker. Rita would likely be entitled to either cancel the contract or request a refund of any payments made.
In conclusion, in a situation where the subject matter of a contract becomes impossible to deliver through no fault of either party, the party unable to perform is generally not entitled to demand payment.
