With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was to enforce a specific promise in the contract, then the gravamen of the complaint was in contract. However, if the contract merely provided the context in which the relationship between plaintiff and defendant arose and the duty breached arose by operation of law, imposed on the parties without regard to their consent, then the gravamen of the action was in tort. Wadsworth, 791 P.2d 1013; Van Horn Lodge, Inc., 627 P.2d at 643; and compare Lewis v. Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co., 535 P.2d 1188 (Alaska 1975), appeal after remand, 579 P.2d 532 (Alaska 1978) and 629 P.2d 65 (Alaska 1981) with Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Anchorage Inc. v. Superior Burner Service Co., Inc., 427 P.2d 833 (Alaska 1967). The Alaska Supreme Court reached an arguably contrary decision in Bibo, 770 P.2d at 295 (<HOLDING>). The conflict was apparently resolved in Lee

A: holding that causes of actions against directors of corporations for breach of fiduciary duty are contract actions
B: holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract
C: holding that actions based on breach of fiduciary duty must inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole
D: recognizing a cause of action against a corporations directors brought by a creditor for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporations financial condition
A.