With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". statutory interference with contract against Hill-Rom with a triple damage penalty; (3) common law tortious interference with contract against Hill-Rom; and (4) breach of contract against Hill-Rom. J.A. at 10-12. Stinger demanded damages of $4,498,689.00 for breach of contract against Hill-Rom Medaes and Hill-Rom; $4,498,689.00 for common law interference with contract against Hill-Rom; and $13,496,067.00 in triple damages for statutory interference with contract against Hill-Rom. On April 25, 2000, Hill-Rom and Hill-Rom Medaes moved for judgment on the pleadings. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, because Stinger was “not necessarily obliged to perform any services at all under the Agreement.” The district court accepted the recommendation and dism 2 (6th Cir.1930) (<HOLDING>). In the Agreement, Stinger agrees to make

A: holding that the parties purchase agreement did not require a showing of prejudice for plaintiff to assert that defendant waived its claim for indemnification
B: holding that an executory distribution agreement that did not require the manufacturer to provide or the distributor to purchase any specific quantity of product lacked the required mutuality to enforce it
C: holding that contract requiring buyer to purchase a fixed quantity of goods that amounted to roughly 6080 of its needs was not unlawful because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require the buyer to purchase any amounts of the defendants product that even approached its requirements
D: holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party
B.