With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the basis of Ms. Nicastro’s apparent or ratified authority fails. C. Defendant’s Termination of the CBA Defendant contends that even if the CBA is valid and enforceable, it was termi nated by Bentz’s failure to sign the renewal assent in 1994, or, in the alternative, by Bentz’s March 1996 letter to the Funds. We find Defendant’s argument to be without merit for two reasons. First, Bentz’s actions did not constitute termination of the CBA according to its explicit terms. Second, the Third Circuit only recognizes three distinct defenses to actions by benefit funds for e h “Evergreen Clauses” requiring written notice are not terminated absent compliance with the terms of the contract. See, e.g., Local 257, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Grimm, 786 F.2d 342, 345-46 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Central States, Southeast, and Southwest

A: holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement
B: holding that noncompliance with terms of agreement did not terminate agreement failure to comply with date requirement in termination procedure rendered termination ineffective and letter between nonparty and party could not terminate agreement
C: holding that an agreement providing this agreement when signed by author and publisher will cancel and supercede the previous agreements  was clearly intended to terminate an earlier agreement
D: holding franchisor could not arbitrarily terminate franchise agreement as it would be a disregard of franchisees interests under the agreement
B.