With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and is not “connected with” or “directly related to” appellants’ sales to 3M and Worum. Lorix contends, however, that there must only be a “reasonably close connection” between the cause of action and the defendant’s contacts with the forum state to support a finding of specific jurisdiction. Lorix argues that the sale of rubber-processing chemicals to Minnesota corporations to manufacture products other than tires is sufficiently related to a suit alleging that downstream indirect purchasers paid a supracompetitive price for tires that contained those same rubber-processing chemicals. But for specific jurisdiction to exist, a plaintiff must show a more direct connection between his alleged injury and the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. See Marshall, 610 N.W.2d at 676 (<HOLDING>); Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., 555 N.W.2d 301,

A: 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
B: holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract
C: holding city waives immunity by entering into contract
D: holding entering into a contract with a minnesota resident can justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction but only where the dispute involves the contract
D.