With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence. Appellee also argues appellant acknowledged in his deposition that the sales agency agr appellant, at his own risk and expense, continued to perform valuable services on behalf of appel-lee for a period of some seven months after the acquisition, and a jury might reasonably infer from the evidence that appellee knowingly accepted the benefits of appellee’s services for a substantial portion of the extended contract term. Because appellee did not have the express contractual right to terminate the agency agreement unilaterally, before the expiration of the one-year term, appellant’s part performance would constitute sufficient consideration to establish mutuality of obligation. See Gable v. Frigidaire Corporation, 121 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1938, writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>); Park v. Swartz, 110 Tex. 564, 222 S.W. 156

A: holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement
B: holding that lack of closing date in option contract did not preclude enforcement by specific performance
C: holding that in absence of contractual right to cancel contract even part performance may constitute sufficient consideration for its enforcement
D: holding that if plaintiff substantially performed its contractual obligations then it would be entitled to the payment due under the contract less the cost of any correction of defects in its performance even if it breached the contract
C.