With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of liabilities), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 28, 695 A.2d 671 (1997). However, certain categories of substantive contracts, including those that contain exculpatory clauses, have historically been disfavored in law and thus have been subjected to close judicial scrutiny. See 11 Williston on Contracts, supra, § 30:9, at 103-04 (citing types of contractual provisions that require strict construction, including “forfeitures, penalties, provisions limiting a party’s legal rights, and provisions that depend for their validity or enforceability on the subjective judgment of one of the parties”). Our Court previously expressed a similar disfavor for such agreements and applied careful scrutiny to the interests involved. See Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 333, 901 A.2d 381 (2006) (<HOLDING>). That said, despite the warnings about

A: holding defendant was improperly denied potentially exculpatory evidence
B: holding exculpatory clause limiting liability arising out of car racing unenforceable due to statute regulating field and its expressed public policy in protecting participants and spectators
C: holding unenforceable parents execution of exculpatory agreement on behalf of child
D: holding arbitration clause in reinsurance agreement unenforceable under kansas statute
C.