With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". clear, our conclusion does not purport to decide whether JLL is entitled to the $6.62 million in commission payments it seeks. We hold only that Tu-rowski’s participation in the NSF leasing efforts did not render the Agreement unenforceable as a matter of public policy. With this question of law resolved, we return the matter to the district court to resolve the legal and factual issues that remain in dispute, including whether “the parties agreed to a $1 million commission with respect to the NSF lease” in an oral agreement. J.A. 178 n. 3. IV. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed and this matter is remanded to the district court. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 . Hoffman so argues because it submits that "Turowski’s extensive participation in d 102 (1950) (<HOLDING>). 3 .In light of this determination, and

A: holding unenforceable a real estate contract that provided for the payment of brokerage fees to an unlicensed corporation
B: holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable
C: holding prospectively that a vendees interest in a real estate contract constitutes real estate within the meaning of the judgment lien statute
D: holding unenforceable a contract for real estate commissions formed by an unlicensed corporation
A.