With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (affirming the bankruptcy court's holding that the parties' relationship of approximately 15 months was sufficient to establish an ordinary course of dealings); Fulcrum Direct, Inc. v. Associated Footware, Inc. (In re Fulcrum Direct, Inc.), Adv. Case. No. 99-251, 2003 WL 1878070, 2003 Bankr.LEXIS 318 (Bankr.D.Del. Apr. 14, 2003) (finding that a two year relationship an ordinary course of dealings between the parties); Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. v. CBA Indus. (In re Color Tile, Inc.), 239 B.R. 872, 875 (Bankr.D.Del.1999) (finding a relationship that existed for nearly three years was long enough to establish the course of dealings between the parties). But see Buffalo Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Omega Tool Corp. (In re Buffalo Molded Plastics, Inc.), 344 B.R. 394, 405 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2006) (<HOLDING>); Morris v. Sampson Travel Agency, Inc. (In re

A: holding that the parties relationship was not lengthy enough to establish an ordinary course of dealings as the first transaction between the parties was subject to the preference action
B: recognizing that course of dealing may establish limitation of damages as part of parties bargain in fact but finding record was devoid of any evidence to establish a prior course of dealing between parties
C: holding that the average number of days to payment nearly doubled between the historical period and the preference period which based on the facts of that particular case made the payments outside the ordinary course of dealings between the plaintiff and defendant
D: holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship
A.