With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This is a question of law. Id. We hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that Wojciechow-ski was not personally liable for Brave Coast’s debt. The language of the credit application signed by Wojciechowski is clear and unambiguous in its statement that Wojeiewchowski personally guaranteed payment on the subject account. Florida law is clear that an individual who executes a guarantee as an officer of a corporation by inserting his corporate title after his name on a document cannot defeat the purpose of the guarantee when, by its terms, the document contains provisions for individual liability. See Laboratory Corp. of America v. McKown, 829 So.2d 311, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). See also Nelson v. Ameriquest Technologies, Inc., 739 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); Saada v. Grumman Credit Corp., 583 So.2d 430,

A: holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract
B: holding that a confessed judgment was not enforceable against a corporate president who individually guaranteed payment of corporate note signed by him in his capacity as president and which authorized confession of judgment
C: holding that the fact that a guarantor added letters vp after his signature and thus allegedly executed a guaranty only in his corporate capacity did not defeat a finding that the guarantor was individually liable the express and unambiguous provisions of the guaranty made the guarantor individually liable
D: holding a corporate officer individually liable without piercing the corporate veil because he specifically directed sanctioned and actively participate in the maintenance of the nuisance
C.