With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". When RTC withdrew funds from the annuity contracts to satisfy the defaulted loan, the Armstrongs did not pursue any legal action to assert that the assignment was not valid. In fact, the record is devoid of evidence that the Armstrongs ever asked a court to consider the assignment unenforceable until now, in this collateral tax proceeding. They claim that they have consistently argued that the as signment was invalid by way of telephone calls to bank representatives, meetings with congressmen, and other informal methods. Assuming the truth of these assertions, we find it puzzling that the Armstrongs could believe the assignments were invalid for over a decade, yet take no action to reform the contract or seek judicial clarification, see, e.g., Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 143, 150 (N.D.1980) (<HOLDING>); N.D. Cent. Code § 32-04-17 (permitting North

A: holding judicial reformation of contract is an appropriate remedy when the contract was the product of a mutual mistake
B: holding that mutual mistake is ground for reformation when as here the minds of the parties have met contractually but because of a mutual mistake the written contract between the parties is wanting in expression or execution to evince the actual and binding contractual intent of the parties
C: holding that a mistake of law is not a basis to rescind a contract
D: holding that both the lack of mutual assent and the indefiniteness of contract terms negate the existence of a contract
A.