With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [¶ 25.] The parents contend that the rigid scheme of SDCL 3-21-2 should not preclude remedies for breach of implied and expressed contractual obligation because breach of contract is not a tort-based claim. Contract claims carry á six-year statute of limitations. SDCL 15-2-13. Therefore, they assert that the matter should be remanded to the trial court on the breach of contract claims. [¶26.] “We have long recognized that ‘[c]onduct that is merely a breach of contract is not a tort.’ ” Trouten v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co., 2001 SD 106, ¶ 32, 632 N.W.2d 856, 864 (quoting Weeg v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co., 82 S.D. 104, 109-10, 141 N.W.2d 913, 916 (1966)). Consequently, the notice provisions of SDCL 3-21-2 do not apply to breach of contract claims. Finch, 443 N.W.2d at 635 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court erred in granting

A: holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
B: holding that prejudice is not an element to be considered in regard to the failure to give mandated statutory notice
C: holding that it is not necessary to give notice pursuant to sdcl 3212 on contractbased claims
D: holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3
C.