Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in Eric

Which of the following was the result on appeal in Eric Lucier and Karen Haley v.Angela and James Williams,Cambridge Associates Ltd. ,and Al Vasys,the case in the text in which,after finding significant problems with their roof,the plaintiffs claimed that provisions in a home inspection contract illegally limited the liability of the defendants?

A) The court ruled in favor of the defendants on the basis that no contract of adhesion was involved and that,therefore,by definition the contract satisfied public policy.
B) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis that the limitation of liability provision in the contract was unconscionable and violated the public policy of the state.
C) The court ruled in favor of the defendants on the basis that while the court would intervene in appropriate cases,a presumption against a finding of unconscionability exists in home inspection contracts;and the plaintiffs failed to rebut that presumption.
D) The court ruled in favor of the defendants on the basis that the plaintiffs freely entered into the contract and should,therefore,be bound to its terms.
E) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis that although the contract was not unconscionable,public policy was violated.