With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court had personal jurisdiction over appellant based on the general jurisdiction statute, section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes, we affirm the court’s order on that basis and pretermit the remaining grounds argued. Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity. “Substantial and not isolated activity” has been found to mean “continuous and systematic general business contact” with Florida. See Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 739 So.2d 617, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In 1997, appellant s 710 So.2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>). Achievers makes it clear that general

A: holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida
B: holding that nonresident individual defendants business contacts with florida as a distributor for two corporations with offices in florida forover a threeyear period brought her within the ambit of section 481932
C: holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant
D: holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida
B.