With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (applying reasonable manifestation standard to ascertain terms of contract between student and university); Tobin v. University of Maine Sys., 59 F.Supp.2d 87, 95 (D.Me.1999) (noting defendant’s acknowledgment of contractual relationship between students and universities); Dinu v. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll, 56 F.Supp.2d 129, 130 (D.Mass.1999) (acknowledging modern case law’s acceptance of “strong, albeit flexible, contractual flavor” of relationship between universities and students, as well as role of student handbooks in defining terms of relationship); Govan v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 66 F.Supp.2d 74, 82 (D.Mass.1999); Fellheimer v. Middlebury Coll., 869 F.Supp. 238, 242-43 (D.Vt.1994). But see Pacella v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Dental Med., 66 F.Supp.2d 234, 241 (D.Mass.1999) (<HOLDING>). Defendants cite a number of cases in support

A: holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision
B: holding that no modification of the original employment contract occurred when the employer unilaterally issued a new handbook
C: holding that contractual relationship between student and university did not include terms of the handbook because university retained right to unilaterally modify terms of handbook without notice plaintiff neither negotiated for nor assented to terms of contract and relevant correspondence did not call special attention to handbook
D: holding that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook was illusory where the employer expressly reserved a right to unilaterally rescind any provisions of the handbook
C.