With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". also Cohen v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 262 A.D.2d 189, 693 N.Y.S.2d 529, 531 (1999). Here, the evidence was undisputed that the tender was conditioned upon the signing of a release as to all claims and not merely a release of the claim for the amount offered to be paid under the stock redemption agreement. Although Mr. Ismark was ultimately unsuccessful in his claim that additional amounts were due to him under the various agreements, W.G. Mills’ offer of payment did not qualify as a tender because it was conditioned upon Mr. Is-mark’s release of all claims. Mr. Ismark was thus entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount that W.G. Mills acknowledged was due under the stock redemption agreement. See RDR Computer Consulting Corp. v. Eurodirect, Inc., 884 So.2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). We therefore reverse that portion of the

A: holding that where the amount of damages was the primary issue in dispute the plaintiffs claim for damages was not liquidated until the date the jury returned its verdict and the plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest under ksa  16 201
B: holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict
C: holding that as a matter of law claimant was entitled to an award of prejudgment interest on damages that were liquidated as of a date certain citing argonaut ins co v may plumbing co 474 so2d 212 fla1985
D: holding prayer for general relief does not support award of commonlaw prejudgment interest as element of damages
C.