With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ■ New York law applicable to the agreement. See All Star Enter., Inc. v. Buchanan, 298 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (noting choice of law provisions are properly considered in minimum-contacts analysis for general jurisdiction); see also Coleman, 83 S.W.3d at 810. ACTIS was a joint venture between DENSO America and a trading company for Toyota in North America. DENSO Japan entered into a “license and technical assistance agreement” with ACTIS, which allowed ACTIS to request technical support from DENSO Japan. DENSO Japan provided no services to ACTIS under the agreement. We conclude neither the nature of these contracts nor the performance thereunder indicate DENSO Japan purposely directed its business activity at Texas. See Reid, 130 S.W.3d at 219 (<HOLDING>). Technical, Manufacturing, Business, and Legal

A: holding that a texas court had personal jurisdiction over a kansas resident who after objecting to the texas courts jurisdiction filed a motion for attorneys fees
B: holding nonresident defendant did not submit to general jurisdiction of texas courts merely by executing contract with resident
C: holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas
D: holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident guarantor of debt to texas creditor based only on sending a guaranty agreement to texas and discussing the general pattern of texas cases holding likewise
B.