With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". our responsibility to adopt the approach by which we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would abide. Absent indication that the Illinois Supreme Court is moving away from the common-sense conflicts approach that it embraced in Ingersoll, 262 N.E.2d 593, we will continue to apply the Second Restatement’s “most significant contacts” test. The appellate court’s holding in Olsen, contrary to the defendant’s contention, does not constitute such an indication. Olsen involved a contract for the sale of real estate. In it, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint because the contract involved was void under the law of the state where it was made. In resorting to this older rule, the appellate court relied on Frankel v. Allied Mills, Inc., 369 Ill. 578, 17 N.E.2d 570 (1938) (<HOLDING>), and did not apply the significant contacts

A: holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable
B: holding the real estate sale proceeds
C: holding that a contract for sale of real estate was not void where the broker failed to obtain the required licenses
D: holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made
D.