With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". purchase of the Facilities. • The Authority scheduled another bond authorization election in September 2004. However, the Authority did not include any item authorizing the bonds that would have required to purchase the Facilities. Upon learning of this omission, the Developers lodged a protest with the Authority, pointing to the language of the Agreements an cts alleged in the Developers’ petition affirmatively negate the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by showing that the Developers consented to any alleged taking by the Authority. See Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d at 598-99; Steele Co., 236 S.W.2d at 869; Hightower, 134 S.W.2d at 407. The Developers argue that the Authority has breached the A .W.3d 747, 757-58 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). In the Agreements, the Developers consent to

A: holding that as a matter of law nonbreaching party was bound by the contract despite other partys material breach because nonbreaching party continued to demand performance under the contract following the material breach
B: holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach
C: holding that an uncured material breach does not discharge the nonbreaching party unless the material failure to perform cannot be cured
D: holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract
A.