With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". denying B-S Steel injunctive relief. Nevertheless, we are precluded from reversing the district court’s summary judgment on this ground because B-S Steel is no longer a purchaser of WFB from the appellees and has failed to show any possibility that it might resume such purchases in the future. As indicated above, a plaintiff must have made reasonably contemporaneous purchases in order to show a violation of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act. Without such purchases, there can be no causal connection between the threatened injury that B-S Steel alleges and a violation of § 2(a). Nor would any such injury be one that this provision could remedy in practice. A consideration of the factors listed above thus militates against recognizing standing here. See H.L. Hayden Co., 879 F.2d at 1022 (<HOLDING>). B-S Steel points to an Eighth Circuit case as

A: holding that since the defendant is no longer selling to plaintiffs as is its right there is no danger that it will sell to them on discriminatory terms in violation of 15 usc  13 1982 and accordingly no basis for a robinsonpatman injunction
B: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
C: holding that there is no due process right to appellate review
D: recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct
A.