With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". practical and lawful meaning to their terms.” Id. (citing Whitley v. Royal Trails Property Owners’ Association, Inc., 910 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)). This Court finds that this observation militates more in favor of Plaintiffs legal position. This Court finds that the cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable because they involved parties to a contracts that attempted to terminate an agreement based on the other party’s alleged breach, unlike the situation in this case where the Defendants that breached are the parties attempting to terminate. See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1490 (11th Cir.1983) (finding some of franchisee’s breaches immaterial); Westcap Gov’t Secs., Inc. v. Homestead Air Force Base Fed. Credit Union, 697 F.2d 911, 913 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). This Court agrees that facts of the cases

A: holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated 
B: holding that such information is not material under securities law
C: holding that in the absence of a termination provision an eight day late delivery of mortgagebacked securities was not so material that it entitled the buyer to terminate the contract
D: holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision
C.