With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and that the restrictions were not preempted. See id. at 1024-29. Applying that precedent here, we hold that the City satisfies both prongs of the Cardinal Towing test and so was acting as a market participant when it added section 25 to the LAX licensing contract. 1. Efficient Procurement of Goods and Services First, like the college in Johnson, the City is attempting to avoid disruption of its business: If a private entity operated LAX, that entity would have a pressing interest in avoiding strikes, picket lines, boycotts, and work stoppages. Those interests are not any less pressing simply because the City rather than a private business operates the airport, and labor peace agreements are one way to protect those interests. See Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. at 231-32, 113 S.Ct. 1190 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs urge the opposite conclusion on

A: holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor
B: holding that a case was not moot where city failed to provide assurance that policeman charged with misconduct would not be rehired or that challenged conduct would not be resumed
C: holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law
D: holding that bostons requiring a nostrike provision in subcontractor agreements was permissible mar ket participation because the city was attempting to ensure an efficient project that would be completed as quickly and effectively as possible and because analogous private conduct would be permitted
D.