With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". however, can be a strong disincentive to parties who wish to make an offer that settles the entire case and spares them of the expense of litigation. See Patrick E. Broom & Anders T. Aanestad, Rule 68 Offers of Judgment—Problems Created by Duke v. Cochise County, Arizona Attorney, Aug.-Sept.1998, at 29. ¶22 Apportionment makes it “no longer ... enough to figure out what it would be worth to end a matter entirely. It [becomes] necessary to work into the total dollar amount that is offered figures which could be accepted by the other side and still allow enough money in the budget for defense of those unaccepted claims.” Id. With apportionment, “[o]ne cannot guarantee oneself freedom from litigation.” Id.; see also Wiese v. Dedhia, 354 N.J.Super. 256, 806 A.2d 826, 831 (Ct.App.Div.2002) (<HOLDING>) (certif. granted Feb. 9, 2006). When being

A: recognizing burden placed on plaintiffs making a joint offer if the new jersey rule were construed to require spousal plaintiffs with interrelated claims in the absence of any conflict of interest to submit separate offers of judgment
B: recognizing new jerseys interest in deterrence of tortious misconduct as a relevant factor in choice of law decisions applicable where two of defendants were new jersey residents from whom damages were sought for their negligent acts in new jersey
C: holding that the new jersey blue sky law simply allows the bureau to regulate its half of the transaction  the offer that occurs entirely within the state of new jersey
D: recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller
A.