With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". nonresident guarantor merely because the guarantor is a passive investor in the corporation whose debt the guarantor assures.” Id. at 574. Similarly, in Bond Leather Co. v. Q.T. Shoe Mfg. Co., 764 F.2d 928 (1st Cir.1985), a nonresident guarantor guaranteed a loan to his brother’s corporation, Q.T. Q.T. was a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the manufacture of shoes, and it purchased raw leather from Bond, another Massachusetts corporation. The guarantor, a resident of Ohio, had no financial interest in the debtor corporation. Q.T. went bankrupt and Bond filed suit against Q.T. and the guarantor. The court held that the creditor failed “to identify any contract rights created by the guaranty in [the guarantor] which could have been enforced i c., 655 F.Supp. 1122, 1127 (E.D.Pa.1987) (<HOLDING>); Northern Trust Co. v. Randolph C. Dillon,

A: holding that a party contracting with a resident of pennsylvania despite not physically signing the contract in pennsylvania was sufficient to determine purposeful availment and vest pennsylvania with jurisdiction given that the party mailed the contract to pennsylvania directed payments to pennsylvania and conducted business with the same pennsylvania company repeatedly
B: holding that a nonresident defendants contract in this case a guaranty with a pennsylvania business entity alone cannot automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts
C: holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts
D: holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas
B.