With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contention is without merit, we need not address whether its premise is legally sound. Lamar cites no authority addressing whether a contract that does not exceed the scope of a governmental entity’s powers when entered into can nonetheless be declared void pursuant to section 432.070 because a subsequent development in the law declares or renders the subject or effect of the contract to be in excess of the governmental entity's powers. 18 . In the argument portion of its Brief addressing Point Two on appeal, Lamar also argues that the Agreement is valid because Whiteco and City "substantially complied” with section 432.070. This argument exceeds the scope of the point relied on, preserving nothing for our review. In re Marriage of Fritz, 243 S.W.3d 484, 488 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (<HOLDING>). In any event, Lamar cites no authority for

A: holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal
B: holding that ijssues that are raised only in the argument part of the brief and are not contained in the point relied on are not preserved for review
C: holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised
D: holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived
B.