With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and appropriately granted General Accident’s motion for summary judgment on Professional Plastering’s action on a common law bond claim. Because the court specifically indicated it was not going to decide whether Professional Plastering properly and timely served the notices of nonpayment, and as there appears to be an affidavit in the file that controverts the issue of proper notification, we reverse that part of the order dismissing count two with prejudice. The payment bond issued on 21 July 1999 was derived from an American Institute of Architects boilerplate form. Its terms and coverage were substantially similar to that outlined in section 713.23(3). See Bridgeport, 903 So.2d at 308; see also Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Dunn, 342 So.2d 132, 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>). The bond’s notice provision stated that no

A: holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed
B: holding that the defendants were entitled to recover as costs not only bond premiums but the additional cost to obtain a letter of credit that was required by the surety as collateral before the issuance of bond
C: recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest
D: holding that the letter of credit was substantially equivalent to posting a supersedeas bond and the 100 cost was reasonable and probably less than the premium of a surety bond
A.