With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". parties in the instant case had a seventeen-year business relationship during which Rowlette served as the exclusive sales representative for Calphalon in a five-state area, the majority summarily concludes that such a relationship is not a “continuing business relationship” within the meaning of Burger King and that the contacts created by this series of agreements are merely “fortuitous.” The majority entirely dismisses the duration of the relationship, stating only that the “quality” of the relationship, not the “quantity” is controlling. The majority then declares that the “quality” of the relationship has only a fortuitous relationship with Ohio, citing the wholly inapposite and distinguishable cases of Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus., Inc., 106 F.3d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), and International Technologies Consultants,

A: holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
B: holding one phone call by itself insufficient to find minimum contacts
C: holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed
D: holding that a contract governing a onetime sale and purchase of a product negotiated by fax and phone is insufficient to establish minimum contacts where delivery actually occurred in another state
D.