With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a contract for electrical work for the completion of a construction project at Stockton State College, the plaintiff argued that the trial judge had erred in assessing the date of substantial completion. Id. at 39, 453 A.2d 559. The plaintiff asserted that substantial completion had occurred months before the actual completion date of May 14, 1976, and therefore it should not be liable for liquidated damages after the substantial completion date. The Appellate Division remanded the issue to the tri & Brooner Constr. Co. v. Golden, 499 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.Ct.App.1973) (awarding delay damages for lost rental on theater and the costs of extending a construction loan until date of substantial completion). Cf. Brooks Towers Corp. v. Hunkin-Conkey Constr. Co., 454 F.2d 1203 (10th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Perini’s argument that delay damages

A: holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect
B: holding that attorneys fees can be awarded only from time duty to defend arose
C: holding no lost rentals can be awarded where delay in substantial completion was excusable
D: holding that a property owner can make a claim against the state prior to the completion of the state action where statute says claim must be made within six months after completion of the action by the state
C.