With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law and fact. Allen v. Reynolds, 145 Idaho 807, 812, 186 P.3d 663, 668 (2008). Because these mixed questions are primarily questions of law, we exercise free review. Id.; Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 69, 936 P.2d 1309, 1311 (1997). Estoppel may not ordinarily be invoked against a government or public agency functioning in a sovereign or governmental capacity. Terrazas v. Blaine County ex rel. Bd. of Comm’rs, 147 Idaho 193, 200-01, 207 P.3d 169, 176-77 (2009); State ex rel. Williams v. Adams, 90 Idaho 195, 201, 409 P.2d 415, 419 (1965); Buell v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 151 Idaho 257, 265, 254 P.3d 1253, 1261, (Ct.App.2011). Cf. Kelso & Irwin, P.A. v. State Ins. Fund, 134 Idaho 130, 138, 997 P.2d 591, 599 (2000) n of Nez Perce County, 138 Idaho 82, 87, 57 P.3d 793, 798 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Willig v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare,

A: holding that based upon the facts presented the arbitration provisions restricting or banning class actions are substantively unconscionable
B: holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable
C: holding quasiestoppel did not apply when boards actions were not unconscionable without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstance
D: holding quasiestoppel did not apply when department did not take an inconsistent position without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstances
C.