Erica Johnson contracted with Better Housing Contractors to have five stores built in five different states to facilitate the expansion of her chain of clothing stores. Because Better Housing Contractors had a reputation as being the best contracting service for finding cheap labor and materials, Johnson made are that the contract contained an antidelegation clause. She wanted to be sure that only Better Housing Contractors was involved in her buildings. Better Housing Contractors found builders and supplies in four of the five states and built Johnson's stores to her satisfaction. In the fifth state, Better Housing Contractors was having trouble because they had not worked there before. The head of the company delegated the contracting work for Johnson's store to another company. The fifth store ended up costing Johnson much more than the other four. Erica sued Better Housing Contractors, claiming that the delegation was not valid. How would a court most likely rule on the delegation of the fifth store's construction? a. The court probably decided that the delegation was effective because Better Housing Contractors made a good effort to the duty themselves before making the delegation. b. The court probably decided that the delegation was effective because Better Housing Contractors that the other company could do the job better. c. The court probably decided that the delegation was not effective due to the antidelegation clause. d. The court probably decided that the delegation was not effective because delegations cannot be made in states than the where the original contract was