With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Uniform Partnership Act, provides that dissolution is caused “by the express will” of any partner ceasing association with the continued operation of the business. TUPA § 31. Palmer contends that the June 1995 letter conclusively established the partnership’s dissolution as of that date. Palmer cites a single Texas court of appeals case, Woodruff v. Bryant, 558 S.W.2d 535, 539-40 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.), in support of the proposition that dissolution occurs “automatically” upon a partner’s expression of intent to dissolve. But in every Texas case cited by Palmer or the court of appeals, the court only held that the mere expression of will to dissolve is legally sufficient evidence of dissolution. See Thomas v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 704 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>); Woodruff, 558 S.W.2d at 539-40 (holding a

A: holding that unsupported contentions do not preclude summary judgment
B: holding that an affidavit denying what is established by ones own evidence  does not preclude summary judgment
C: holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff
D: holding a single conversation to be sufficient evidence of dissolution to preclude summary judgment
D.