With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". value.” Exh. 3 to Rigney Decl. This statement raises the possibility that the cost of repair will not fully compensate Plaintiffs for Defendant's breach. Under such circumstances, a plaintiff may be entitled to both diminution in value and cost of repair. See Thomas Haverty Co. v. Jones, 185 Cal. 285, 197 P. 105 (1921) (in action by contractor to recover payments for construction work, affirming district court's damages award of contract price minus: 1) the cost to fix those defects that were remediable; and 2) the diminution in value resulting from defects that could not be remedied). The Court need not reach this issue, however, because Plaintiffs have presented no admissible evidence that the defects at issue here are irremediable. See Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (<HOLDING>). In particular, the letter cited above is

A: holding that under florida law a court hearing a case on a motion for a summary judgment can only consider those issues raised by the pleadings
B: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
C: holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion
D: holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment
D.