With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Indeed, except for third-party beneficiary and tor-tious interference theories ... in order to maintain an action to recover for breach of contract, privity must exist between the party damaged and the party sought to be held liable. Norris v. Housing Auth. of Galveston, 980 F.Supp. 885, 892 (S.D.Tex.1997). Here, the Plaintiffs allege that the contracts at issue were solely between AHK and Plaintiffs. Doc. 108, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18. Nowhere in their Complaint do Plaintiffs allege that Shadle was a party to the contract; instead, they only assert that she “approved” the contract terms. Id. ¶ 32. Such allegations are insufficient to establish privity of contract between the parties, and are therefore insufficient to support a breach of contract claim. Se'e Norris, 980 F.Supp. at 892-93 (<HOLDING>). Regardless of the lack of privity between

A: holding that parol evidence is admissible to show that an individual who signed a contract but is not named in the body is a party to the contract
B: recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
C: holding individual who signed contract on behalf of a corporation is individually liable where he knew corporation was not incorporated at the time the contract was executed
D: holding that a plaintiffs breach of contract claim failed because he could make no showing that the individual defendants acted in their individual capacities when they signed the contract on behalf of the employer housing authority
D.