With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". out of the 1972 and the 1991 agreements. However, the trial court held, and we agree, that the 1972 and 1991 agreements were ineffective to create a contractual or business relationship with Drummond and United. Without evidence indicating that the 1972 or 1991 agreement was effective and binding, Drummond cannot prove that anyone wrongfully interfered with the purported relationship. However, we also note that the trial court held, and we agree, that Drum- mond and United had an ongoing business relationship — a tenancy at will that flowed from the expired original leases. A tenancy at will is a sufficient business or property interest to support a claim of tortious interference under the proper circumstances. See, e.g., Hall v. Integon Life Ins. Co., 454 So.2d 1338, 1344 (Ala.1984) (<HOLDING>). However, those proper circumstances are not

A: holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference
B: recognizing that wrongful or malicious interference with atwill employment contract may give rise to a tortious interference claim the fact that the employment is at the will of the employer and the employee does not make it one at the will of third parties
C: holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims
D: holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will
B.