With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “disclose to a consumer buying on credit exactly how much he will pay for that credit.” Id. at 932. The court held that the allegations in the complaint successfully stated a claim for a violation of that requirement. It reasoned: In this case, [plaintiffs] allege that [defendant] is charging higher prices to customers who are buying cars on credit than to customers who are paying cash. In other words, credit customers, such as the [plaintiffs], are paying higher “cash” prices only because they are buying on credit. The higher cash price paid by these customers is therefore part of the cost of buying on credit. Under TILA, such a cost is a finance charge and must be disclosed to the consumer as such. Id.; accord Gibson v. Bob Watson Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., 112 F.3d 283, 287 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In contrast to the cases on which plaintiffs

A: holding merely that to the extent a breaching party claims that the appropriate measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price it holds the burden of proving that there is in fact an available market for the goods in issue
B: holding that the difference alleged between the price of a car warranty in credit transactions and the price of a car warranty in cash transactions constituted a finance charge that must be disclosed under tila
C: holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach
D: holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy
B.