With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (reaching a contrary result based on pre-petition status); In re Morse, supra at 237 (same). These decisions conclude that, both as a historical matter and a practical one, post-petition contracts with debtors-in-possession arise in the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Particularly persuasive is the First Circuit’s reasoning in In re Arnold Print Works. In that case as in this one, the debtor corporation continued to manage its property as a “debtor in possession” subsequent to the filing of its Chapter 11 case. And, in that case as with this one, the debtor entered into a post-petition contract with another corporation as part of an effort to sell estate assets. Thereafter, a dispute arose as to the quality of the debt- or’s product and the corporation contract kr.N.J.1987) (<HOLDING>). The court distinguished Mohawk Industries,

A: holding that debt from debtor to bank in the form of chargebacks to the debtors account for credit card transaction rescissions was prepetition debt even though customers rescinded transactions postpetition and the bank therefore chargedback postpetition because a customers right to rescind and thereby the banks right to chargeback accrued at the time the customer made a purchase even though such customer exercised his right to rescind postpetition
B: holding that a postpetition claim under section 1305 is a liability that arises postpetition and relates only to postpetition activity
C: holding an action to recover a postpetition account receivable to be core
D: holding an action for postpetition breach of an agreement to purchase property to be a core proceeding
C.