With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was asked: Q: Okay, I’m just going to clarify. That is your belief, the, that you could terminate your agreement with Helikon at any time? A. [Gaede] I’m just not sure, to tell you the truth. Thus, the summary judgment evidence does not support appellee’s claim that appellant judicially admitted he could, unilaterally, have terminated the agency agreement. Second, the summary judgment record shows appellee approved of appellant’s continuing performance of his sales agent duties through the remainder of 1996 and well into 1997. A jury might reasonably infer from these circumstances that appellee intended to extend appellant’s agency contract for the period of time expressed in the written communications. See Irwin v. Irwin, 300 S.W.2d 199, 203 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1957, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Third, the issue of whether a contract is

A: holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred
B: holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances
C: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
D: holding that parties intent to create or extend agency relationship may be inferred from their conduct viewed in light of all circumstances surrounding transaction
D.