With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". look at these instruments other than as pieces of one agreement, structured to disguise a speculative, offshore transaction that posed an unreasonably large risk, and was inappropriate and possibly illegal for a regulated Korean life insurance company to enter into. The special purpose entities and intermediaries that were made parties to the contracts were not intended as the real parties in interest. The real parties in interest were KLI and Morgan, and just as KLI owed duties to pay Morgan, Morgan had duties to cooperate with KLI should it wish to mitigate its growing losses and demand an unwind, through the clause 2(e) that KLI insisted on as a precondition of its entering into the deal. See Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 639 N.Y.S.2d 977, 663 N.E.2d 289, 292 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Morgan executed the documents with clear

A: holding that the other party must have adequate notice of the claim in order to defend against it
B: holding that a promisor impliedly pledges that it shall not do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the promise
C: holding that under the implied covenant of good faith neither party to a contract shall do anything which has the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract
D: holding that where a city enters contract in excess of its statutory power the mere fact that the municipality has received the benefits of the contract which has been performed by the other party does not make the municipality liable either on the theory of ratification estoppel or implied contract in order to do justice to the other party by paying the reasonable value of the property or services
B.