With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contributions, and contract termination is not among them. See Agathos v. Starlite Motel, 977 F.2d 1500, 1505 (3d Cir.1992). 1. Defendant’s Attempted Termination of the CBA Defendant failed to terminate the CBA. The CBA contained an “Evergreen Clause” which stated that renewal was automatic barring “written notice duly given to the other party...” CBA at 44. Defendant cites no case law to suggest that Bentz’s failure to sign the renewal assent form constitutes proper termination merely because Bentz intended so. Furthermore, Bentz sent the March 1994 letter to the Funds, not the Union, even though the CBA required written notice to the other “party.” The Funds were not a party to the CBA. See generally Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U.S. 459, 80 S.Ct. 489, 4 L.Ed.2d 442 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Courts consistently conclude that contracts

A: holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds
B: recognizing that an indemnity provision and an agreement to provide insurance are separate and distinct obligations
C: holding that absent specific language to the contrary benefit funds are separate from union signatories to cbas and that employers obligations to funds are separate from obligations to unions under cbas
D: recognizing division of separate property to be contrary to statute and constitution
C.