With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at least when presented with IBT’s aim to “benefit” from the breach by gaining a release of liability through the proposed back-to-work agreement, justifies allowing a tort claim against IBT. Although Granite Rock’s argument has some emotive force, Granite Rock provides no persuasive case support for its position, and does not explain adequately how the concepts of “close relationship” and “benefit” bring IBT within the scope of the contractual rights and obligations created by the new CBA. The majority of our sister circuits to have considered the question have declined to find a section 301(a) cause of action against parties not governed by the relevant agr nd jurisdiction under section 301(a) for a tor-tious interference with contract claim); Pratt-Farnsworth, 690 F.2d at 501-02 (<HOLDING>); Serv., Hosp., Nursing Home & Public Employees

A: holding that a duty of care may arise out of a contractual relationship between two parties
B: holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties
C: holding that economic interest defense is available inter alia where defendants were significant stockholders in the breaching partys business where defendant and the breaching party had a parentsubsidiary relationship where defendant was the breaching partys creditor and where the defendant had a managerial contract with the breaching party at the time defendant induced the breach of contract with plaintiff
D: holding in response to plaintiffs arguments that defendants had conspired with the alleged breaching party that the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties requires dismissal of the section 301 claim
D.