With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". used machines built in the forum to manufacture its products. 97 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir.1996). Thus, Flexsys maintains that “simple commercial contacts” unrelated to a plaintiffs claim are not transformed into an adequate constitutional basis for jurisdiction, even when the sales are of a much greater dollar volume than Flexsys’s sales in Minnesota. See Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 991 F.2d 1195, 1198 (4th Cir.1993) (finding insufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction defendant’s annual sales of $9-13 million in the forum state over a five-year period, which constituted 2% of defendant’s total sales, employment of sales people in the forum state, and purchases in the forum state); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 578 (2nd Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Lorix counters that Flexsys misstates the

A: holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state
B: holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state
C: holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
D: holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction
D.