With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); see also Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co., 100 F.3d 1353, 1361 (7th Cir.1996). In addition, Quitman representatives physically came into Illinois and visited Brandon as part of the negotiations over the contracts at issue in this case. As the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly recognized, “ ‘a defendant’s participation in substantial negotiations conducted in the forum state leading to the contract at issue is a significant basis for personal jurisdiction.’ ” Mid-America Tablewares, 100 F.3d at 1361; see also NUCOR, 28 F.3d at 581 (finding jurisdiction constitutional because defendant attended one meeting in the forum state out of which the parties’ relationship was formed); Deluxe Ice Cream Co. v. R.C.H. Tool Corp., 726 F.2d 1209, 1215-16 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Neiman v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 619 F.2d 1189,

A: holding that defendants attendance atlunch meeting in illinois on terms of contract was sufficient to justify jurisdiction
B: holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court
C: holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent
D: holding that discussions in illinois leading to contract created jurisdiction
D.