With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 251 La. 749, 206 So.2d 95 (1968); American Metal Window Co. v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 183 So.2d 667, 669 (La.App. 1st Cir.1966). 12 . Duet v. Lucky, 621 So.2d 168, 173 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993) (noting that absent evidence substantiating alleged mistake in intent, no reason exists to look beyond four comers of document); Brown v. Simoneaux, 593 So.2d 939, 941 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992) (noting that "the language of the release is so broad and unambiguous it leaves little to be misunderstood”); Barnhill v. Consolidated Medical, Disability & Life Trust, 569 So.2d 1115, 1117 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 93 (La.1991) (finding language of release so broad as to clearly cover liability sued upon); Shepherd v. Allstate Ins. Co., 562 So.2d 1099, 1102 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Watkins v. lohns-Manville Corp., 458 So.2d

A: holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission
B: holding plaintiff could not avoid release absent evidence he made reasonable effort to have document read to him
C: holding unambiguous release executed by literate intelligent party could not be nullified absent vice of consent
D: holding that to be valid and binding a release must be executed with full knowledge of the import of what is being signed and with the intent to discharge from liability
C.