With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1. Further, Wilson does not challenge the District Court’s determination that the Terms and Conditions were not unconscionable — a determination that in no way hinged on whether the specific versión of the Terms and Conditions submitted by Kellogg in this litigation is the correct one, but merely assessed the procedural context in which Wilson signed the agreement. These two concessions are fatal to Wilson’s claims. They confirm that an express contract — the Terms and Conditions (regardless of which precise version Wilson signed) — governed Wilson’s relationship with Kellogg, and thus that, as the District Court held, Wilson’s only two claims — for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment — are unsustainable. See Hudson v. Mathers, 283 Mich.App. 91, 770 N.W.2d 883, 887 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. City of Detroit,

A: holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment
B: holding that defrauded party may either choose to void the contract and recover paid consideration on an unjust enrichment theory or affirm the contract and pursue a breach of contract remedy
C: holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment
D: holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force
C.