With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Overflow Owner does not allege simply that Structure Owners sat on their rights to the point of waiving them. Instead, it argues that some affirmative acts were taken by Structure Owners, including closing the parking garage and closing a large portion of the mall retail space, that violated the ROA restriction on parking ratios and that, by engaging in those affirmative acts, they waived the ability to prevent Overflow Owner from contravening that same restriction. See Musgrove, 2009 WL 976010, at *6 (noting that “a restriction can be waived to the extent it is violated, even if a more expansive ‘waiver’ would not be supported by the evidence”); cf. Friedman v. Rozzlle, No. 13-12-00779-CV, 2013 WL 6175318, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 21, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). The limited terms of this nonwaiver clause do

A: holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
B: holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable
C: holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties
D: holding that property owner who violated restrictive covenant multiple times over several years waived enforcement of same restriction against third parties as matter of law
D.