With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This presumption, however, could be rebutted by showing a contrary intent mutually manifested by the parties. Such a presumption would not work a hardship on the mortgagee since, in virtually all instances, he is the drafter of the mortgage note and can thus include within the note a clause stating that the note is not subject to prepayment. This would put the mortgagor on notice that he will in all probability be restrained from selling the land for the duration of the term. If he signs the note containing such a provision, he will then be bound by it even though it may restrain his right to its sale or use. Id. at 65-66, 468 A.2d at 461. In dicta, the Mahoney court went on to temper its holding by stating that .3d 864, 880-81, 489 P.2d 1113, 1123-24, 97 Cal.Rptr. 849, 859-60 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Coast Bank v. Minderhout, 61 Cal.2d 311,

A: holding as an unreasonable restraint on alienation the automatic enforcement of a dueonsale clause where the borrower has entered into an installment land contract to sell the secured property
B: holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause
C: holding the enforcement of a dueonencumbrance clause to be an unreasonable restraint on alienation unless the borrowers conduct endangers the lenders security
D: holding that once congress removes restraints on alienation of indian land the protections of the nonintercourse act no longer apply
C.