With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., 201 N.C. App. 726, 689 S.E.2d 601, 2010 WL 10963 at *3-4 (2010) (unpublished) (applying common law principles of contract law, such as offer and acceptance, to a claim filed under the Workers’ Compensation Act). This Court has held that a lapse in employment and subsequent rehiring via a “last act” made in North Carolina created a contract that was “made” in North Carolina for jurisdictional purposes under Section 97-36. Baker v. Chizek Transp., Inc., 210 N.C. App. 490, 711 S.E.2d 207, 2011 WL 904271 at *4-5 (2011) (unpublished). Similarly, under the common law of contracts, a modification to the terms of a contract may create a new underlying contract that was “made” in North Carolina. See, e.g., Spartan Leasing Inc. v. Pollard, 101 N.C. App. 450, 457, 400 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Section 97-36 also employs the phrase

A: holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties
B: holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified
C: holding that an addendum letter was a new contract because it modified a prior lease agreement
D: holding no enforceable contract where letter specified it was a letter of interest only and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement
C.