With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d at 890. The more recent case of Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1999), also discusses the requirements of these types of agreements. There, the court stated: “A settled-but-not-paid requirement, finally, also accords with the long-established rule that a contractor need not pay its sub before making a claim on its behalf. See George Leary Constr. Co. v. United States, 63 Ct.Cl. 206, 223, 1927 WL 2960 (1927) (Tt is easy to forecast the financial ruin of a Government contractor if the rule is to be established that he may not receive amounts due from the Government under his contract until he establishes . . . that he has paid his subcontractor all he owes him.’); see also Severin v. United States, 99 Ct.Cl. 435, 443, 1943 WL 4198 (1943) (<HOLDING>).” 175 F.3d at 1250. The Morrison court went on

A: holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate
B: holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor
C: holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors
D: holding that if contractor is hable to sub that liability though not yet satisfied by payment might well constitute actual damages to the contractor and sustain their suit under rule that contractor may only sue to recover its own damages
D.