With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Appeals has continued to apply this non-apportionment rule. See Grand Rapids Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of Wyoming, 29 Mich.App. 474, 185 N.W.2d 591, 594-95 (1971) (citing Chaussee and Early); see also Davey Tree Expert Co. v. Site Dev. Inc., No. 313971, 2014 WL 2600566, at *4 (Mich. Ct. App. June 10, 2014) (citing Grand Rapids and rejecting liquidated damages without evidence that the other party was the sole cause of delay). Both federal and other state courts, however, have been shifting away from the strict application of this rule. One federal court in Michigan did not follow the rule when delay could be apportioned and liquidated damages were per diem, as they are under Bailey’s contract with the State. In re Constr. Diversification, Inc., 36 B.R. 434, 437 (E.D. Mich. 1983) (<HOLDING>). More recently, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the

A: holding that liquidated damages provision did not provide adequate remedy at law or prevent injunctive relief
B: holding that michigans nonapportionment rule does not apply where responsibility for discrete days can be apportioned under a per diem liquidated damages provision
C: holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla
D: holding that liquidated damages under fair labor standards act constitutes compensation for the retention of a workmans pay which might result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages
B.