With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The court stated that if Avatar wanted the title, it would probably have to sue for specific performance. On appeal, Avatar argues that the court erred in declining to rule that N.C.J. would be required to transfer title to Avatar upon Avatar’s tendering the price established at arbitration. Avatar argues such a determination was implicit in the arbitrator’s award. We do not agree because the arbitrator was never asked to decide whether N.C.J. should be required to transfer title upon tender of the market value established at the arbitration. It is not unusual for parties to a contract to agree to submit certain matters, especially of valuation, to arbitration, but to leave other matters for the court system. Compare State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Licea, 685 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, the deed restriction only requires the

A: holding a cancellation clause that releases both parties from their obligations does not render contract void for lack of mutuality of obligation
B: holding that causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amountofloss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss the amount of which is disputed
C: holding that appraisal provision in homeowners insurance policy in which insurer also retained rights did not lack mutuality of obligation where retention of rights clause was interpreted to mean right to litigate issue of coverage rather than amount of loss
D: holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued
C.