With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Efird was also aware that Showtime, and then Topshelf, could only receive purchase orders for Sims 1 and 2 if the Navy requested that CEC provide simulators. (See id. at 8-10; Doc. 27-2 at 13.) There is no dispute that the Navy can-celled its program for Sims 1 and 2 in January of 2012. (Doc. 27-1 at 59.) There is nothing unfair or deceptive about not extending a subcontractor relationship when the underlying employer discontinues the work. CEC is also correct that Plaintiffs cannot claim to have been deceived by any positive comments or vague statements about future expectations of work with CEC; such statements, particularly in light of the written terms of the contractual relationship, cannot give rise to an unfair and deceptive practices claim. Smith, 604 F.Supp. at 527, 530-31 (<HOLDING>). Finally, for these same reasons, Tops-helf

A: holding that a plaintiffs belief that a product could fail in the future is not without more a legal injury sufficient to support plaintiffs claim
B: holding that expressions of belief or opinion regarding the future of plaintiffs and defendants respective businesses and promissory statements of future intent do not violate the udtpa
C: holding that future predictions and opinions especially those regarding future profitability of business cannot form basis for fraud as matter of law
D: holding that a promissory statement of future intent which does not come to fruition is not an unfair or deceptive practice
B.