With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Knecht Bros. v. Ames Constr., Inc., 404 N.W.2d 859 (Minn.App.1987), in which we held that the clear application of a UCC provision made the appellant’s position frivolous. Id. at 861. Similarly, in Summit House Co. v. Gershman, 502 N.W.2d 422 (Minn.App.1993), this court concluded that the appellant’s claim was frivolous because the appellant’s inter pretation of the law was contrary to existing law. Id. at 425. In the instant case, however, no Minnesota law existed on the issue, and the application of the UCC provision was unclear. We hold that the Bank’s position was not frivolous or taken in bad faith. Although the Bank’s reliance on the WTA provision proved unconvincing, its position was sufficiently grounded in the statute. See Nelson v. Engen, 347 N.W.2d 57, 61 (Minn.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the Bank instituted proceedings

A: holding that instruction that omitted elements of crime that defense had conceded was error although not plain error
B: holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence
C: holding that appellants innovative theory based on minnesotas nofault act although in error was not frivolous
D: holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory
C.