With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". never be an appropriate measure of damages, Plaintiffs have not cited any admissible evidence suggesting that the general rule articulated in Kitchel should not be applied here. On the other hand, Kitchel and its progeny do not support SBVS’s argument that under California law, no consequential damages, including lost rent, can be recovered on construction contracts. Neither Kitchel nor any other case the Court has found stands for such a broad rule. Rather, in the absence of a valid contractual limitation on liability provision, Plaintiffs are entitled to lost rent if such damages were foreseeable at the time of contracting. See Brandon & Tibbs v. George Kevorkian Accountancy Corp., 226 Cal.App.3d 442, 277 Cal.Rptr. 40 (1990); Mahone v. Thompson, 83 Cal.App. 561, 257 P. 127 (1927) (<HOLDING>). In Brandon & Tibbs, the court explained that

A: holding that the measure of damages for breaching a building construction contract is ordinarily such sum as is required to make the building conform to the contract
B: holding that rental value was properly included as part of damages on action for breach of building contract where contractor failed to complete building within contracted time
C: holding that builder who was in the business of building and selling homes and who had a contract for the building of a home in which employee of subcontractor was injured was to be considered a principal contractor for purposes of workers compensation even though at the time of injury he was the owner of the house being built
D: holding construction of new building was part of a grocers business
B.