With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". if any of them believed that the Creditor Group was legally barred from ... bringing the Claims, (Answering Br. at 21.) We agree. To hold otherwise would allow a “claw back” of the sale itself because the value of the claims, without the ability to prosecute them, would be completely eliminated and a central feature of the transaction would thus be frustrated, through no apparent fault of the Creditor Group. See, e.g., Pieper, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC, 390 F.3d 1062, 1066 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding that defendant’s expressed principal purpose for entering an agreement was substantially frustrated by the failure of basic assumption of the agreement, defeating the commercial reason for contract); Unihealth v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 14 F.Supp.2d 623, 635 (D.N.J. 1998) (<HOLDING>); 30 Williston on Contracts § 77:95 (4th ed.

A: holding that conspiracy requires an agreement to accomplish either an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means
B: recognizing frustration of purpose where an unexpected regulatory change substantially frustrated the principal purpose of the agreement to the unfair advantage of one party
C: recognizing purpose of ccpa as protection of consumers from unfair illegal or deceptive acts
D: holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation
B.