With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d at 395-96 (parties’ prior course of dealing on hundreds of occasions, involving receipt and payment of invoices which all included limitation of liability provisions, supplemented their oral contract which was silent as to limitation of liability); but cf. Argo Welded Prod., 528 F.Supp. at 592 (declining to find that limitation of liability was incorporated into parties’ agreement based solely on prior course of dealing on at least five prior occasions during which standard printed delivery receipts containing limitation of liability clause were issued to purchaser and signed by its agent, who admitted that he was familiar with the form, but finding a binding agreement based on signature of agent); Kunststoffwerk Alfred Huber v. R.J. Dick, Inc., 621 F.2d 560, 564-65 (3d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). With regard to establishing trade usage, the

A: 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
B: holding that the trial court erred by imposing a duty of good faith on seattlefirst in relation to a course of dealing when that course of dealing conflicted with the express terms of the contract
C: holding that claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing was precluded but only because there was not an express agreement between the parties
D: holding that course of dealing may render uncertain terms sufficiently definite
A.