With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". matter. When it is clear, however, from the relevant parts of the contract taken together and considered with the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, that the obligation in question was within the contemplation of the parties or was necessary to effect their intention, then such obligation may be implied and enforced. But when the contract between the parties speaks to the obligation sought to be implied, the courts will not write that implied obligation into the contract. Stated conversely, there may be an implied covenant on the part of the lessee (in the absence of any expressed on the subject as in the lease).[ ] Id. (citations, alterations, and quotation omitted). See also Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 123 N.M. 526, 943 P.2d 560, 569 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in accordance with New Mexico law, any

A: recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions
B: holding that state courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants
C: holding that courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions
D: holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy
C.