With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Amicus New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association argues that the formulation of the intent rule in Perea is closer to the “flat bar” rule than the “intent of the parties” rule formulated in other jurisdictions. The Trial Lawyers ask this Court to adopt a “specific identity” rule. In particular, they urge this Court to adopt as a matter of public policy a rule of release interpretation under which every general release will be deemed to contain a term implied in law limiting the effect of general language. Under this rule, a releasee could obtain the release of other possible tortfeasors only by specifically naming those tortfeasors or by using some other specific identifying terminology. Because no such language was included in this release, under the specific identity S.W.2d 78, 82 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Lackey v. McDowell, 262 Ga. 185, 415 S.E.2d

A: holding that in order to fulfill legislative intent to abolish commonlaw release rule general release must specifically identify parties to be released
B: holding that release must specifically identify persons to be discharged in order to ensure that intent of parties is fulfilled
C: holding that release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons to be discharged
D: holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement
C.