Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancÃ©e a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, 1972, and assuming further that he was aware when the agreement was made of the purpose for which Farquart wanted the completed house, which of the following, if true, would best support Farquart's claim for consequential damages on account of delay beyond June 10, 1972, in getting the house finished?
Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, had to pay storage charges on their wedding gifts and new furniture until the house was completed.  Junior's fiancÃ©e jilted Junior on June 10, 1972, and ran off with another man who had a new house.  Farquart was put to additional expense in providing Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, with temporary housing.  On June 10, 1972, Farquart paid a $5,000 judgment obtained against him in a suit filed March 15, 1972, by an adjoining 61 landowner on account of Farquart's negligent excavation, including blasting, in an attempt to finish the house himself after Sawtooth's repudiation.
Question: Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancÃ©e a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, 1972, and assuming further that he was aware when the agreement was made of the purpose for which Farquart wanted the completed house, which of the following, if true, would best support Farquart's claim for consequential damages on account of delay beyond June 10, 1972, in getting the house finished?
A. Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, had to pay storage charges on their wedding gifts and new furniture until the house was completed. 
B. Junior's fiancÃ©e jilted Junior on June 10, 1972, and ran off with another man who had a new house. 
C. Farquart was put to additional expense in providing Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, with temporary housing. 
D. On June 10, 1972, Farquart paid a $5,000 judgment obtained against him in a suit filed March 15, 1972, by an adjoining 61 landowner on account of Farquart's negligent excavation, including blasting, in an attempt to finish the house himself after Sawtooth's repudiation.
Answer: