Psi Co owned a ship called The Greek that was worth $$15$ million. It intended to use that ship to perform a contract with Omega Inc that required it to deliver Omega's widgets from Vancouver to Los Angeles. Wilson negligently created a fire that destroyed The Greek. Psi Co wanted to buy a replacement ship, called The Athenian, for the purpose of performing its contract with Omega, but it could not immediately afford the full purchase price. Psi Co therefore rented a ship, called The Canadian, for $$2$ million and used it to perform its contract with Omega. After being paid by Omega, Psi Co bought The Athenian for $$15$ million. Psi Co has successfully sued Wilson for negligence. The court agrees that Psi Co is entitled to $$15$ million for the loss of its original ship. Psi Co$,$ however, claims that it is also entitled to $$2$ million, representing the money that it was required to pay in order to rent The Canadian. Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Psi Co's claim for $$2$ million?

Question $5$Select one:

A$.$

That claim will probably fail because there was a lack of factual causation.

B$.$

That claim will probably fail because there was no duty of care.

C$.$

That claim traditionally would have failed because the relevant loss is partially attributable to the plaintiff's own impecuniosity.

D$.$

That claim is properly decided under the concept of an intervening act.

E$.$

That claim will be decided by the crumbling skull rule.