With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fails to appreciate that for causation to be “definitely established,” i.e., “directly and primarily” and “inevitably and naturally, not possibly or probably,” both foreseeability and certainty must be established, as plaintiffs have done in this case, and the court so held. As California Federal Bank further explained, the purpose of “definitely establishing]” a causal connection between the breach and loss is so the non-breaching party will not be awarded more than if the contract had been performed. In this case, the court’s determination that TFC is entitled to a damage award of $109.309 million meets the “definitely established” standard in that the award does not exceed the Government’s contractual promise that Transohio Savings could treat the $157.5 mil 160 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Gwartz v. Jefferson Memorial Hospital Assoc.,

A: holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court
B: holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction pursuant to  2209a2 over a defendant who was not transacting  business in illinois within the meaning of  2209al because the plaintiff was a nonillinois corporation and the tort thus occurred outside of illinois
C: holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law
D: holding under illinois law that injuty to the corporation does not  prevent suit by an investor who suffers a distinct personal injuty
D.