Plaintiff Construction Co. sued Defendant Development Co. for money owed on a costplus contract that required notice of proposed expenditures beyond original estimates. Defendant asserted that it never received the required notice. At trial Plaintiff calls its general manager, Witness, to testify that it is Plaintiff's routine practice to send cost overrun notices as required by the contract. Witness also offers a photocopy of the cost overrun notice letter to Defendant on which Plaintiff is relying, and which he has taken from Plaintiff's regular business files. On the issue of giving notice, the letter copy is 
admissible, though hearsay, under the business record exception.  admissible, because of the routine practices of the company.  inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.  inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence of the notice.
Question: Plaintiff Construction Co. sued Defendant Development Co. for money owed on a costplus contract that required notice of proposed expenditures beyond original estimates. Defendant asserted that it never received the required notice. At trial Plaintiff calls its general manager, Witness, to testify that it is Plaintiff's routine practice to send cost overrun notices as required by the contract. Witness also offers a photocopy of the cost overrun notice letter to Defendant on which Plaintiff is relying, and which he has taken from Plaintiff's regular business files. On the issue of giving notice, the letter copy is 
A. admissible, though hearsay, under the business record exception. 
B. admissible, because of the routine practices of the company. 
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence of the notice.
Answer: