With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the use of supervisory goodwill flowing from acquisition of the Ohio-insured thrifts, any one of which would be sufficient consideration. First, plaintiff points to Home’s agreement to acquire the federally-insured thrift, Home Federal. Defendant does not deny the government’s receipt of this consideration and plaintiff contends it is adequate consideration to support all government promises made in connection with the other aspects of the agreement. Plaintiff relies on Corbin on Contracts: “A single and undivided consideration may be bargained for and given as the agreed equivalent of one promise or of two promises or of many promises.” 2 Corbin on Contracts § 5.12 at 56; see also Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth. v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 297, 299 (1985), aff'd, 790 F.2d 95 (Fed.Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>). Second, the FHLBB Resolution required Home to

A: holding that factors as a whole were not duplicative
B: holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration
C: holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole
D: holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause
C.