Mural, a wallpaper hanger, sent Gennybelle, a general contractor, this telegram: Will do all paperhanging on new Doctors' Building, per owner's specs, for $14,000 if you accept within reasonable time after main contract awarded./s/ Mural Three other competing hangers sent Gennybelle similar bids in the respective amounts of $18,000, $19,000, and $20,000. Gennybelle used Mural's $14,000 figure in preparing and submitting her own sealed bid on Doctors' Building. Before the bids were opened, Mural truthfully advised Gennybelle that the former's telegraphic sub-bid had been based on a $4,000 computational error and was therefore revoked. Shortly thereafter, Gennybelle was awarded the Doctors' Building construction contract and subsequently contracted with another paperhanger for a price of $18,000. Gennybelle now sues Mural to recover $4,000. Which of the following, if proved, would most strengthen Gennybelle's prospect of recovery? 
After Mural's notice of revocation, Gennybelle made a reasonable effort to subcontract with another paperhanger at the lowest possible price.  Gennybelle had been required by the owner to submit a bid bond and could not have withdrawn or amended her bid on the main contract without forfeiting that bond. Mural was negligent in erroneously calculating the amount of his sub-bid. Gennybelle dealt with all of her subcontractors in good faith and without seeking to renegotiate (lower) the prices they had bid.
Question: Mural, a wallpaper hanger, sent Gennybelle, a general contractor, this telegram: Will do all paperhanging on new Doctors' Building, per owner's specs, for $14,000 if you accept within reasonable time after main contract awarded./s/ Mural Three other competing hangers sent Gennybelle similar bids in the respective amounts of $18,000, $19,000, and $20,000. Gennybelle used Mural's $14,000 figure in preparing and submitting her own sealed bid on Doctors' Building. Before the bids were opened, Mural truthfully advised Gennybelle that the former's telegraphic sub-bid had been based on a $4,000 computational error and was therefore revoked. Shortly thereafter, Gennybelle was awarded the Doctors' Building construction contract and subsequently contracted with another paperhanger for a price of $18,000. Gennybelle now sues Mural to recover $4,000. Which of the following, if proved, would most strengthen Gennybelle's prospect of recovery? 
A. After Mural's notice of revocation, Gennybelle made a reasonable effort to subcontract with another paperhanger at the lowest possible price. 
B. Gennybelle had been required by the owner to submit a bid bond and could not have withdrawn or amended her bid on the main contract without forfeiting that bond.
C. Mural was negligent in erroneously calculating the amount of his sub-bid.
D. Gennybelle dealt with all of her subcontractors in good faith and without seeking to renegotiate (lower) the prices they had bid.
Answer: