With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Alaska 1997). 3 . See Newcastle Properties, Inc. v. Shalowitz, 221 Ill.App.3d 716, 164 Ill.Dec. 221, 582 N.E.2d 1165, 1168 (1991). 4 . See id. 164 Ill.Dec. 221, 582 N.E.2d at 1169. 5 . Id. (quoting Village of Glenview v. Northfield Woods Water & Util. Co., 216 Ill.App.3d 40, 159 Ill.Dec. 569, 576 N.E.2d 238 (1991)). 6 . P.A. Bergner & Co. v. Lloyds lewelers, Inc., 112 Ill.2d 196, 97 Ill.Dec. 415, 492 N.E.2d 1288, 1291 (1986). 7 . Newcastle, 164 Ill.Dec. 221, 582 N.E.2d at 1169. 8 . See id. 9 . See Western Pioneer v. Harbor Enter., 818 P.2d 654, 656 n. 3 (Alaska 1991). 10 . See Smith v. State, 921 P.2d 632, 634 (Alaska 1996). 11 . See Martindell v. Lake Shore Nat’l Bank, 15 Ill.2d 272, 154 N.E.2d 683, 690 (1958). 12 . See Echo, Inc. v. Whitson Co., 121 F.3d 10 6, 1290 (N.D.Ill.1983) (<HOLDING>); Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 189

A: holding that if the implied obligation to deal in good faith were allowed to create a cause of action in an employmentatwill situation it would eviscerate the at will doctrine altogether
B: recognizing duty to deal in good faith in workers compensation setting
C: recognizing the basic principle of contract law that the obligation of good faith is an implied condition in every contract
D: holding that putting implied restrictions on an employmentatwill contract would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract which allowed for termination at any time
A.