With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Accordingly, HRS § 454-8 must be interpreted to invalidate only those contracts into which unlicensed mortgage brokers enter in them capacity as mortgage brokers within the meaning of HRS § 454-1. However, any more restrictive construction of the term “contract” in HRS § 454-8 is unwarranted. If the legislature merely intended to invalidate the recovery of unlicensed brokerage commissions, it would not have needed to render the entire contracts themselves “void and unenforceable.” Beneficial Hawaii urges that the fact, without more, that a party to a transaction is unlicensed, in violation of a licensing statute, does not, in and of itself, render the entire transaction illegal and therefore void, citing Wilson v. Kealakekua Ranch, Ltd., 57 Haw. 124, 130-32, 551 P.2d 525, 529-30 (1976) (<HOLDING>), Kona Joint Venture I, Ltd. v. Covella, 88

A: holding that mutuality of obligation is essential for contracts based on mutual promises and that a contract is unenforceable where a party is free to perform or not perform the contract
B: holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy
C: holding that architects violation of licensing statute did not render contract to perform architectural services void and unenforceable inasmuch as statute which provided for penal sanctions but was silent with respect to enforceability of contracts of its violators could not be interpreted as intending forfei ture of fees for services wholly out of proportion to the requirements of public policy extent of harm and moral quality of conduct of parties
D: holding that in action to enforce note and mortgage by mortgagee which performed brokerage services as part of agreement with mortgagor mortgagees failure to obtain brokers license in violation of statute invalidating unlicensed peisons contracts for commission did not render entire real estate transaction void
C.