With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tammy had the burden to prove (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract and (2) the Bank’s breach. Bus. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Banks, 90 So.3d 1221, 1224-25 (¶¶ 10-11) (Miss.2012) (overruling Warwick v. Matheney, 603 So.2d 330, 336 (Miss.1992)). While the four CDs formed contracts, giving Tammy and Reagan certain contractual rights, none of those rights were violated by the Bank when— without requiring Ronnie present the CDs and without giving Tammy notice — it consented to Ronnie’s request for a transfer. A. Existence of Contracts ¶ 12. The four CDs were non-negotiable. This means that they were not instruments governed by Article 3 of Mississippi’s Uniform Commercial Code. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-102 (Rev.2002); see Estate of Isaacson v. Isaacson, 508 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Miss.1987) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the terms and provisions of the CDs

A: holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined
B: recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations
C: holding cds that preclude transfer by stating they are not transferable not negotiable or nonnegotiable are not subject to article 3
D: holding assignment of a mortgage was not subject to article 9
C.