With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". distributors so as to take advantage of more favorable prices.” Further, the court found “there was no rigid pricing formulas in the contracts such that the entire overcharges was passed on without reference to the forces of the marketplace.” Lefrak, 487 F.Supp. at 820-21. Thus, Lefrak did not involve “pass through” contracts which locked the purchaser into a fixed quantity or to a particular supplier. Redacted Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 608 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1182 (N.D.Cal.2009) (facts indicating that market forces have been suspended may show case fits within exception); see In re Wyoming Tight Sands Antitrust Cases, 866 F.2d 1286 (10th Cir.1989) (construing “fixed quantity” to be an amount); County of Oakland v. City of Detroit, 866 F.2d 839, 849 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). See Hovenkamp, The Indirect Purchaser Rule

A: holding that in order to recover damages including attorneys fees for the damages consequent upon the improper suing out of the writ of attachment the proceedings must be begun  as a proceeding to dissolve the attachment and not as a trial of the case on the merits
B: holding that fees may be awarded for litigating amount of fees only where language of statute supports such conclusion
C: holding that a countys routine attachment of a fixed markup to sludge treatment fees did not amount to a preexisting fixedmarkup fixedquantity contract
D: holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law
C.