With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is not. See id. Fraud in the execution arises when a party enters an agreement “with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its character or its essential terms.” Connors v. Fawn Mining Corp., 30 F.3d 483, 490 (3d Cir.1994). In ornease no such situation exists; in fact, Defendant’s claim here is that it terminated any valid agreement that may have existed. Clearly, Defendant is not claiming a defense of fraud in the execution of the contract where it claims that it terminated the CBA. Third Circuit law prevents Defendant from claiming termination of the contract in the alternative to its failed claim that Eileen Nieastro lacked authority to sign the CBA. See also Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust v. Bla-Delco Constr., Inc., 8 F.3d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Defendant, therefore, may not allege

A: holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable
B: holding that contract termination is defense that contract is voidable not void and that such defense is not available against thirdparty beneficiary benefit fund under  515 of erisa
C: holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid
D: holding that a duty may be owed to a beneficiary of a consensual relationship akin to that of a thirdparty beneficiary of a contract where the professional has actual knowledge that the services being provided are in part for the benefit of such third persons
B.