With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". awarded on the ground that they had filed a joint memorandum on the so-called “Midvale issue” and that they had shared the decisions relating to discovery and production of documents. The total award was $30,604.75. Cellular, CRCI, CRCO, and PTCI appeal the judgment on the merits and the award of sanctions. ANALYSIS The Merits [1] The Attempted Recision. The sole evidence submitted by CRCO as to its attempted recision of its refusal of the NewVeetor interest in the Partnership was its version of the conversation with outside counsel for Oregon RSA. As the district court pointed out, the lawyer’s response was far from clear, so that there was no acceptance of an offer, if indeed an offer was being made. See C.R. Shaw Wholesale Co. v. Hackbarth, 102 Or. 80, 201 P. 1066, 1067 (1921) (<HOLDING>). Neither was there any consideration for this

A: holding that under oregon law an agreement must be supported by consideration to be legally enforceable
B: holding that under oregon law an acceptance of an offer must be positive unconditional unequivocal and unambiguous
C: holding that acceptance of an option must be unqualified absolute unconditional unequivocal unambiguous positive without reservation and according to the terms of the option
D: holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law
B.