With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2001 and June 2002. None of the excerpts of the letters submitted to the Court indicate if the amounts past due are derived from lack of royalty payments by Defendants. However, this is irrelevant in that the termination provision Papa John's relies upon only states three notices of default, not necessarily three notices of default for royalty payments. 3 . Because the "Without Notice” provision is at Papa John’s discretion, Papa John's may or may not terminate the franchise agreements, and the rights pursuant to such, once three notices of default occur. Once they receive three notices of breach, even if cured,. Defendants could assume that Papa John’s will rely on this particular termination provision, that they are no longer allowed to use Papa John's trade 9428, *5 (E.D.Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Defendants allege that Papa John’s,

A: holding that justifiable reliance is a jury question where the contract containing the merger clause was found invalid due to an antecedent fraud
B: holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana
C: holding that the only fraud that could vitiate the contract is fraud that would invalidate the merger clause itself ie fraud relating to the merger clause or fraud that invalidates the entire contract including the merger clause quoting 3 corbin contracts  578
D: holding that where a merger clause is included in the written contract alleged collateral promises will not be enforced through fraud because under fraud the reliance must be reasonable
D.