With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the actual unpaid net earnings to Gerson under the contract to be $549,000.00. Samek, in defending the action, also retained a certified public accountant who concluded that Samek owed Gerson no fees under the contract sued upon. The jury, in a special verdict form, found that Gerson had an oral con CA 1995); see also Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Frank, 442 So.2d 982, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“It is not the function of an appellate court to reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury.”). We likewise affirm the award of prejudgment interest. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 1985) (“[Pjrejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages.”); see also Parker v. Brinson Constr. Co., 78 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla.1955) (<HOLDING>); Celotex Corp. v. Buildex, Inc., 476 So.2d

A: holding that it is proper to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date the monies were due under the contract
B: holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion
C: holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract
D: holding that wife was entitled to prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date those payments were due
A.