With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was filed, to deliver its opposition to the motion. In opposing the motion, the Broker departed from its allegations in the complaint and took the position that it was not, in fact, the only broker that represented the parties with respect to the lease extension. The Broker filed an affidavit by its vice-president, in which the vice-president essentially testified that the Broker actually co-brokered the extension of the lease with First Market Properties, LLC, a Florida licensed broker. The Broker then argued that its claim could proceed under a common law exception to section 475.41 which allows out-of-state brokers to sue for their share of the commission when they co-broker property with a licensed Florida broker. See, e.g., Kagan v. Garfinkle, 312 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (<HOLDING>). The rationale for this exception is that,

A: holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree
B: holding that where a florida broker hired a foreign broker to find foreign purchasers for florida real estate such a contract is legal and gives rise to rights in the foreign broker for the recovery of his share of the commission from the florida broker who employed him
C: holding that florida courts would apply florida law to contracts insuring real property located within the state
D: recognizing that as to notice publication in the laws of florida or the florida statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions
B.