With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The doctrine of substantial compliance can be applied to preclude the dismissal of certain complaints despite the fact that a plaintiffs notice was in some way inadequate. The doctrine generally requires a court to engage in a common sense assessment with respect to whether a notice, despite its inadequacy, fulfilled its statutory purpose and did not prejudice a particular defendant. See, e.g., McClintock, 169 Ill.Dec. at 467-68, 591 N.E.2d at 971-72. Here, Sharon relies on the doctrine to argue that the omission of the date of the engagement was insignificant in light of the fact that the existence of the engagement was not contested. Illinois courts have not, however, stretched the doctrine of substantial compliance to lengths that would excuse the complete omission of a requi (<HOLDING>). These cases suggest that the doctrine of

A: holding that the information must set forth each element of the crime that it charges as well as fairly inform a defendant of the charge against which he must defend
B: holding that each defendants actions in a  1983 case must be considered individually
C: holding that each element required under the act must be included in the written notice and each element must be sufficiently clear and accurate 
D: holding that assertions of privilege must normally be raised as to each record sought and each question asked so that  the court can rule with specificity
C.