With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 87 N.C. App. at 133-34, 360 S.E.2d at 116. We next consider whether Durham County is entitled to governmental immunity with respect to Data General’s claims based on quantum meruit and estoppel. Quantum meruit operates as an equitable remedy based upon a quasi contract or a contract implied in law, such that a party may recover for the reasonable value of materials and services rendered in order to prevent unjust enrichment. See Potter v. Homestead Preservation Ass’n, 330 N.C. 569, 578, 412 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1992). In Whitfield v. Gilchrist, 348 N.C. 39, 497 S.E.2d 412 (1998), our Supreme Court declined to imply a contract in law in derogation of sovereign immunity to allow a party to recover under a theory of quantum meruit, and we decline to do so here. See id. at 43, 497 S.E.2d at 415 (<HOLDING>). On this same basis, we conclude that Data

A: holding that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from an action arising from the states breach of that contract
B: holding that a plaintiff may proceed with a claim against the state for breach of contract only where the state implicitly waives its sovereign immunity by expressly entering into a valid contract through an agent of the state expressly authorized by law to enter into such contract
C: holding the contract was not authorized by law
D: holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract
B.