Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in Heritage

Which of the following was the result on appeal in Heritage Constructors,Inc.v.Chrietzberg Electric,Inc.and Richard Marc Chrietzberg,the case in the textbook involving a wastewater treatment plant improvement project in which the project's electrical work involved the use of a subcontractor,with the general contractor suing the subcontractor for withdrawing its bid?

A) That the agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor fell within the statute of frauds and satisfied it; that the subcontractor was not liable for promissory estoppel damages; and that the subcontractor was not responsible for negligent misrepresentation damages.
B) That the agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor fell within the statute of frauds and satisfied it; that the subcontractor was liable for promissory estoppel damages; and that the subcontractor was not responsible for negligent misrepresentation damages.
C) That the agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor fell within the statute of frauds and satisfied it; that the subcontractor was liable for promissory estoppel damages; and that the subcontractor was responsible for negligent misrepresentation damages.
D) That the agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor fell within the statute of frauds but failed to satisfy it; that the subcontractor was liable for promissory estoppel damages; and that the subcontractor was responsible for negligent misrepresentation damages.
E) That the agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor fell within the statute of frauds but failed to satisfy it; that the subcontractor was not liable for promissory estoppel damages; and that the subcontractor was not responsible for negligent misrepresentation damages.