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 both parties had agreed for 3 years that "market size" was 12 to 16 ounces, Clear Lakes was liable for breach of contract when it tried to change the definition of "market size"
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) the parties' previous dealings were insufficient to show agreement