Which of the following is an effect of a common law rule regarding destruction?

In the context of common law concerning the destruction of property, the effect typically hinges on the principle that if a contract is made for the exchange of specific goods or property, and that property is destroyed without the fault of either party before performance, then neither party will be held liable for breaches resulting from that destruction. This principle arises from the idea that contractual obligations can be rendered impossible when the subject matter of the contract is no longer available due to unforeseen circumstances, which is often referred to as "impossibility of performance."

For instance, if a building that is the subject of a lease agreement burns down due to a natural disaster, both the landlord and the tenant may be released from their obligations under the lease, as the performance of the contract has become impossible due to the destruction of the property. Therefore, option C reflects the correct understanding of how common law treats these circumstances, emphasizing that neither party can be held liable under the contract when the property is inadvertently destroyed.

In contrast, other choices do not align with this principle: contracts do not automatically nullify solely due to destruction, restoration is not typically a requirement in these scenarios, and the contract does not remain intact if the subject matter is lost beyond repair.