With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the day of plaintiff’s accident, nor did it claim that plaintiff's booking was not governed by the contract. It merely argued that: "the moving Defendant is not being sued by a parly with whom it was in a contractual relationship. The moving Defendant did not enter into any contract with Plaintiff, written or otherwise, in New Jersey.” 7 No evidence was presented that would quantify the difference in damages available in New Jersey and Quintana Roo. 8 Quintana Roo's interest is in fact similar to that of Virginia, which we found to be a "significant interest in deterring unsafe property conditions and unsafe conduct of people and enterprises located there.” O'Connor, supra, 255 N.J.Super. at 549, 605 A.2d 773. See also Shuder v. McDonald's Corp., 859 F.2d 266, 271 (3d Cir.1988)

A: recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs
B: recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas
C: holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents
D: recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement
A.