With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As established above, the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the execution of the release instrument establish that the parties did not advert to a future wrongful death action in executing the instrument. Moreover, there is no language in the instrument indicating that the parties intended to settle anything other than claims arising out of Buel Brown’s personal injuries. While on this factor, we address Defendants’ related contention that under LSA-C.C. Art. 3083, an all-encompassing, general release of “all differences” between the parties — as Defendants characterize the release instrument here — covers all claims, even ones that the parties were not thinking about. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Cloy Constr. Co., 425 So.2d 887, 892 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The jurisprudence construing LSA-C.C. Art.

A: holding that  1447c applies to counsel
B: holding that lsacc art 3083 applies to a compromise of all differences and lsacc art 3073 applies to a compromise of limited scope
C: holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
D: holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies
B.