With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". problem of engine ECU for Tundra at the request of [DENSO Tennessee].” Appellees argue “[DENSO Japan] spent significant time addressing an [ECU] quality problem at Toyota’s ... Texas [p]lant,” “DENSO Tennessee requested DENSO Japan investigate and address the problem occurring in Texas ... where the particular ECUs were manufactured and where DENSO Japan assisted in the design and manufacture of products, which would include these ECUs.” As an initial matter, no evidence was presented that DENSO Japan “assisted in the design and manufacture” of the ECUs in the Toyota Tundras addressed above. More importantly, assuming for argument’s sake that DENSO Japan did so, there is no evidence that the quality control issues in these ECUs related to unintended accefer p.Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Contacts with Texas that are unrelated to the

A: holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine
B: holding that a texas court had personal jurisdiction over a kansas resident who after objecting to the texas courts jurisdiction filed a motion for attorneys fees
C: holding licensing agreement between defendant and nonparty texas resident was not relevant to specific jurisdiction
D: holding nonresident defendant did not submit to general jurisdiction of texas courts merely by executing contract with resident
C.