What legal rule is the court announcing in this case? In other words, what lesson should other courts draw from this case?

Multiple Choice (no more info sorry)

A) The parties could have cured all the problems and questions about consequential damages by determining liquidated damages in advance.

B) The forseeability needed to predict and calculate consequential damages can be met by virtue of the length of the relationship between the parties. For example, if the parties have already done five contracts together, they know each other well enough by the sixth contract to know each others' forseeable damages in the event of a breach.

C) For a disputing party to a contract to show that an additional term materially alters the contract, the party must show that one, the additional term was an unreasonable surprise, and two, the disputing company experienced severe economic hardship as a result of the additional term.

D) An exchange of standard form contracts between merchants violates the mirror image rule, therefore merchants are not permitted to use standard form contracts under Florida law.