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) the parties' previous dealings were insufficient to show agreement
B) since there was no written definition of "market size," Clear Lakes was not liable for breach of contract
C) since there was a written contract specifying "market size" as 12 to 16 ounces, Clear Lakes was liable for breach of contract
D) Griffith did not have a case because there was never a contract between the parties
E) none of the other choices are correct