With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". whether this enforceable clause so undermines the two-year requirement that it renders the provision illusory or not a real obligation. Stein v. Paradigm Mirsol, LLC, No. 2:07cv71-FTM-29DNF, 2008 WL 344492, *3-4, *5 (M.D.Fla. Feb.7, 2008) (slip op.) (emphasis added). Judge Steele held that a delay for acts of God “has a well established and limited definition that does not render the Agreement illusory.” Id. at *5. However, the other provisions at issue in Stein, including excused completion in two years for “other delays beyond the control of the Seller,” he held were not limited to the narrow doctrine of impossibility of performance which “is employed with great caution” under Florida law. Id. at *5 n. 4. See also Schatz v. Jockey Club Phase III, Ltd., 604 F.Supp. 537 (S.D.Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also HUD 1984 Guidelines for Exemptions

A: recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
B: holding that to grant extension judge must render extension order which must schedule new date for dismissal
C: holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable
D: holding unconditional commitment under ilsfda was not established by terms of contract that permitted extension of twoyear completion date based on conditions beyond the control of seller and limited purchasers remedies
D.