With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass.App.Ct. 272, 517 N.E.2d 502 (1988), a Massachusetts state court stopped short of adopting the federal district court’s holding but ruled that “the covenant to pay rent [in a commercial setting] is not necessarily independent.” Id. 517 N.E.2d at 505. It concluded that "there is' great doubt whether ... [the doctrine that covenants are independent] remains a correct statement of Massachusetts law,” because leases are for more than just the land. Id. 4 . The Teodori court concluded that the doctrine of independent covenants rests on outdated property principles rather than on contract principles, which better capture the relationship of parties in many modem leases. Id. (relying upon McDanel v. Mack Realty Co., 315 Pa. 174, 172 A. 97, 98 (1934) (<HOLDING>)). 5 . It should be noted that Kimball was the

A: holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies
B: holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract
C: holding that a commercial lessee could retain possession and abate rent in response to a landlords material breach of covenant
D: holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff
C.