With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.C.Code Ann. § 34-31-20(A) (1987) (emphasis added). Because the applicable statute and case law do not exclude the award of prejudgment interest for a claim under the theory of quantum meruit, it appears that our appellate courts have implicitly recognized that such an award is permissible. See, e.g., Okatie River, L.L.C. v. Southeastern Site Prep, L.L.C, 353 S.C. 327, 336-37, 577 S.E.2d 468, 473 (Ct.App.2003) (affirming trial court’s award of damages and prejudgment interest for recovery under quantum meruit/quasi-contract/implied by law); Stringer Oil Co. v. Bobo, 320 S.C. 369, 372, 465 S.E.2d 366, 368 (Ct.App.1995) (implicitly recognizing that prejudgment interest may be awarded pursuant to claim based upon quantum meruit); Builders Transp., Inc., 307 S.C. at 406, 415 S.E.2d at 424 (<HOLDING>). In light of this precedent, we perceive no

A: holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict
B: holding that prejudgment interest may include compound interest
C: recognizing general rule that prejudgment interest may be awarded in claims for liquidated amounts
D: holding that prejudgment interest should be awarded when the claimant has been denied the use of money which was legally due
C.