With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". various factors for making an Erie guess listed in cases such as Hodges v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 474 F.3d 188, 199 (5th Cir.2006) (citations omitted). Starting with the statute, “bind” is not a defined term, there is no legislative history, and the statute does not attempt to address the effect of an unauthorized act on a subsequent BFP. Absent any Mississippi cases directly on point, the Court looked at analogous Mississippi authority and found that Mississippi will protect a principal or a BFP depending on the context of the relationships. Compare Guice v. Burrage, 156 F.2d 304, 306 (5th Cir.1946) (finding that bona fide purchasers for value obtained clear title despite fraudulently conveyed mineral lease deeds) with Sec. Inv. Co. of St. Louis v. Williams, 193 So.2d 719, 722 (Miss.1967) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Nelson, 820 So.2d 23, 24-25

A: holding intervening purchaser of property was subject to tenantatsufferance clause in deed of trust
B: holding that the note and trust deed having been forgeries even an innocent purchaser for value and without notice that they were forgeries could acquire no title
C: holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan
D: holding that under mississippi law a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice unless there is actual notice or circumstances which would put a purchaser on inquiry notice
B.