With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the RPs retained significant rights in the donated materials, and thus the transfer of materials to WU could not have been absolute. We disagree. WU accepted and retained absolute possession of the biological materials immediately upon donation. Although Missouri law generally prohibits a donor from revoking a completed inter vivos gift once the gift is delivered to and accepted by the donee, an inter vivos gift nevertheless may be subject to a condition allowing the donor to exercise a particular revocation right in the future. See Clippard, 168 S.W.3d at 619; see, e.g., Franklin v. Moss, 101 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Mo.1937). The attachment of a condition to a charitable donation of property does not negate or void an otherwise valid inter vivos gift. See 14 C.J.S. Charities § 34 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as WU points out, a contrary rule

A: recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys of the texas medical board
B: holding that the word absolute did not permit the survivor to ignore the disposition to a family member rather the survivor only had an absolute right to the entire corpus for life and at death the property passes in accordance with the terms of the will
C: holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law
D: recognizing the disposition of property for charitable purposes  can be in the form of an absolute transfer subject to conditions
D.