With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". strictly, seemed to encompass only contract claims. Mazzioni Farms, 761 So.2d a 68, 1372 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (accepting parties’ stipulation that New York law applied to their insurance contracts where there was no strong public policy against applying New York law); National Can Co. v. Vinylex Corp., 687 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (deeming parties to have stipulated that Illinois law governed their dispute where both sides maintained in their briefs that Illinois law governed); and Ackerman v. Foster, 974 P.2d 1, 9 (Col. App. 1998) (accepting parties’ stipulation that California law applied to insurance policy). Courts in other jurisdictions have enforced choice of law stipulations on issues of tort law. Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 758 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Von Hundertmark v. Boston Prof’l Hockey

A: holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract
B: holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred
C: holding consent is irrelevant and estoppel does not apply when subject matter jurisdiction is in question
D: holding that parties may stipulate which states substantive law governs their contract and tort claims if the chosen state bears a reasonable relationship to the alleged transaction and injury in question and the stipulation does not violate public policy nor call into question the courts subject matter jurisdiction
D.