With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cates, 953 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, pet. denied) (stating that after a plaintiff files suit, “[i]f the defendant does not insist upon arbitration, the contracting parties have mutually repudiated the arbitration covenant as a matter of law and waived any right thereunder”). As demonstrated by this case, such a holding in a multi-defendant lawsuit could undermine the purposes promoted by arbitration by requiring both trial and arbitration of a plaintiffs claims, depending on the choice of a particular defendant. Because the Vireo court’s statement has not been adopted by any court, does not promote the policy reasons supporting arbitration, and because one of the three justices on the panel in Vireo dissented, we decline to adopt it. Id. at 496-97 (Jones, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold that the trial court did

A: recognizing that the tgaa was enacted to abrogate the commonlaw right of election doctrine
B: holding that even if the doctrine applies to option contracts no conversion would take place until the option were exercised by the party having the right of election
C: recognizing doctrine
D: recognizing first sale doctrine as limiting right of publicity
A.