Final answer:
The contract between Jim and April may be void due to mutual mistake since the cottage was destroyed without their knowledge, making performance impossible. They should communicate, review the contract, and seek legal advice on their rights and obligations, as the outcome depends on contract terms and law.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Jim entered into an agreement to sell his cottage to April for $250,000, both parties were unaware that the cottage had been destroyed. In such a circumstance, the contract may be considered void due to the doctrine of mutual mistake. This doctrine applies when both parties have made a mistake regarding a basic assumption on which the contract was made, and the actual state of affairs does not align with the beliefs of the parties at the time of the agreement.
Both parties should investigate the events and communicate openly about the situation. Since the property no longer exists, the contract's subject matter is gone, and thus performance is likely impossible. It would be prudent for both Jim and April to review their contract for any clauses that pertain to such situations, such as a force majeure clause, and to seek legal advice to confirm their rights and obligations.
Ultimately, the outcome of this case on the contract terms and applicable law, which may vary depending on the jurisdiction. Typically, if the loss of the property is established and neither party had knowledge of it, the contract could be rescinded, and April might be entitled to get her money back, assuming payment was made.