With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this case. It states in part, “[w]hen property is damaged, the loss is the cost of repairs, not to exceed the loss had the property been destroyed.” The district court calculated the cost of repairs based upon the bank’s standard hourly rate for its employees’ time, computer time, and administrative overhead-the same rate that the bank uses in charging paying customers. Sabían complains that this was improper because of the profit margin and administrative overhead that is built into these charges. However, had the bank hired an outside contractor to make the repairs these factors would have been built into the charges. Similarly, had it not been necessary for the bank to devote its employees’ time and computer time to making these repairs, the administrative overhead (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). However, we need not consider this matter in

A: holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract
B: holding that foreseeable consequential damages are to be considered in valuing loss
C: holding that consequential damages are not to be considered
D: holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential
C.