With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiffs seek clarification whether certain Plaintiffs (ie., Rocco and Bridie Doino, Barry and Vicki Karlin, and Barbara Saunders (¶¶ 44, 55, 63)) are excused from presenting their vehicles for repair or adjustments because their vehicles were “totaled in SUA-related incidents.” {See Opp’n at 15. ) In Plaintiffs’ view, these occurrences rendered performance impossible and therefore excused their performance. Id. In response, Defendants merely note that these Plaintiffs, like those who sought replacement or refund, failed to “seek repair” as required by the terms of the warranty. (Reply at 4.) California law has long recognized that impossibility of performance will excuse a party’s performance under a contract. Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard, 172 Cal. 289, 291, 156 P. 458 (1916) (<HOLDING>). However, even accepting Plaintiffs’ argument,

A: holding as a matter of law that mere fact that a contract definite in material respects contains some terms which are subject to further negotiation  will not bar a decree for specific performance if in the courts discretion specific performance should be granted
B: recognizing that courts and commentators have had difficulty determining the meaning of good faith in the definition of fair consideration 
C: recognizing the difficulty of calculating damages but not finding the task impossible
D: recognizing that impossibility but not mere difficulty excuses a partys performance
D.