In Griffith V

In Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout, Griffith grew trout for Clear Lakes; the parties got into a dispute over what were "market size" trout, as Clear Lakes wanted larger fish. The court held that:

A) since the contract between the parties was vague about trout size, there was no enforceable contract
B) Clear Lakes was correct about trade usage regarding "market size" so Griffith had an obligation to grow larger fish and be in compliance with the contract
C) Clear Lakes was correct about trade usage regarding "market size" and Griffith had been delivering undersized fish, so Griffith needed to compensate Clear Lakes for the price change
D) Clear Lakes had underpaid for the trout given current market prices, so owed Griffith damages equal to the market price versus the price paid
E) none of the other choices