With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jan. 18, 2000)). Plaintiff claims that Motiva’s failure to provide STAR base oils “had the effect of cutting off Darby from [the CISA] account.” (ComplJ 14.) In addition, by forcing Plaintiff to divert all its remaining supplies of the STAR base oils to satisfy CISA, Plaintiff “thereby lost the sales it would have made to its other customers, as well as the goodwill of said customers, causing substantial damage to Darby’s business.” (Id. ¶ 15.) These injuries, consisting of lost clients and lost opportunities, while perhaps significant to Plaintiff, are most aptly described as the expectation damages of Motiva’s non-performance of the unenforceable oral agreement. See N. Am. Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Int’l Women’s Apparel, No. 99-CV-4643, 2000 WL 1290608, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2000) (<HOLDING>); Mobile Data Shred, 2000 WL 351516, at *4

A: holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury
B: holding that loss of contingency fees that lawyers might have earned from other clients was not foreseeable and directly traceable to clients failure to pay amounts due under contract
C: holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy
D: holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury
A.