With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Par Land Development Corp., 221 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), and Collins v. Pic-Town Water Works, Inc., 166 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), Appellants assert “an obligation in a deed to pay an association, without a termination date, is perpetual and void.” A simple reading of the restrictive covenants shows Appellants’ assertion is not accurate. Specifically, paragraph 21 of the restrictive covenants for Silver Lakes Acres provides: “These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties until January 1, 1988, after which the said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each unless by vote of the majority of the owners of the lots, it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part.” Cf. Balzer, 346 So.2d at 150 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we also affirm as to Lot 4H.

A: holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies
B: holding the covenant incapable of redaction and thus unenforceable
C: holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
D: holding that where covenant contained in each deed and contract to purchase lot in development provided that purchaser covenanted to pay developer and its successors 20 each year for general maintenance that covenant remained in force until stated date and that it should be automatically renewed for each tenyear period thereafter unless owners of at least twothirds of lots agreed in writing to change or abrogate it covenant was not invalid on theory that it imposed perpetual obligation incapable of abrogation
D.