With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a double discipline issue. Am. Nat’l Can Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 120 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir.1997). The court finds no valid basis to distinguish this case from the Rice matter. Although Henderson purported to rely on factual differences between Rice and this case, he did not explain how those differences would justify a different result. Nor did Henderson explain why the well-recognized bar against retroactivity did not apply to Peterson. Even leaving the Rice decision aside, it is not seriously contested that the Commissioner understood he was constrained to apply the New Policy prospectively. See NFLPA Ex. 119, at 7; id. Ex. 35, at 101:12-13, 99:21-100:15; see also United Transp. Union, Local Lodge No. 31 v. St. Paul, Union Depot Co., 434 F.2d 220, 222 (8th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). Henderson simply disregarded the law of the

A: holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase
B: recognizing that the law of the shop includes the understanding of the parties
C: holding that a contract was fully integrated where it stated that it contained the parties entire understanding was not ambiguous covered the disputed subject matter and conveyed no suggestion that anything beyond the four corners of the writing was necessary in order to ascertain the intent of the parties
D: holding that whether impasse exists rests upon factintensive inquiry into the bargaining history the good faith of the negotiating parties the length of negotiations the importance of the issues about which there is disagreement and the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations
B.