With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". may be found when the nonresident defendant has “purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’ those activities.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (citation omitted). Flexsys argues first that because its only sales of rubber-processing chemicals in Minnesota were to 3M and HCI Worum, which used them to make products other than tires, there is no connection between Flexsys’s sales in Minnesota and Lorix’s alleged injury. Thus, Flexsys argues, its sales to 3M and HCI Worum did not provide “fair warning” of being sued in Minnesota for injuries resulting from the sales of tires because Lorix’s claim does not “ (Minn.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Because Flexsys’s Minnesota sales were to

A: holding that the effects of a tortious act cannot subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum where no other contacts exist
B: holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit
C: holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas
D: holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state
B.