With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Indem. Co. v. The Vessel Sam Houston, 26 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir.1994). As to the second prerequisite, Ingram Micro contends that Airoute insisted on a non-negotiable limited liability freight rate as a result of which it was not permitted to declare the value of the shipment and pay a premium for increased liability by Air-oute. See PL Mem. at 21; see also St. Facts ¶¶ 6,7. Ingram Micro’s assertion is not credible given its status as a sophisticated shipper of goods. The more likely scenario is that Ingram Micro chose not to declare a value for its shipment, and in doing so relinquished the opportunity to obtain greater coverage from Airoute. If Ingram Micro had desired greater coverage from Air-oute, it could have contracted for it. See United States Gold, 719 F.Supp. at 1225 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Airoute asserts that if Ingram Mi cro

A: holding that the court may consider collateral evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement in determining whether the language of the agreement is unclear and if the evidence presented is so plain that no reasonable person could hold any way but one then the court may interpret the meaning as a matter of law
B: holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous
C: holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant
D: holding that a court may consider the economic stature and commercial sophistication of the parties in determining the enforceability of a limitation of liability
D.