With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". When evaluating minimum contacts, we consider five factors: “(1) the nature and quality of [Centreformat’s] contacts with [Missouri]; (2) the quantity of such contacts; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of [Missouri] in providing a forum for its residents; and (5)[the] convenience of the parties.” Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1073-74 (8th Cir.2004) (last alteration in original), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1147, 125 S.Ct. 1304, 161 L.Ed.2d 108 (2005). After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court’s determination that Centreformat lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Missouri to support personal jurisdiction. See Scullin Steel Co. v. Nat’l Ry. Utilization Corp., 676 F.2d 309, 313 (8th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). While a choice of law clause in a contract

A: holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
B: recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties
C: holding that forum and law selection clauses are prima facie valid if 1 the parties choice is not a product of fraud undue influence or overweening bargaining power 2 the choice is not unreasonable and unenforceable if the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for the trial of the action and 3 enforcement would not contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought
D: holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum
A.