Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $12,000 actual and $12,000 punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits?
Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts.  Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce.  No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court.  No, because there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III
Question: Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $12,000 actual and $12,000 punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits?
A. Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts. 
B. Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce. 
C. No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court. 
D. No, because there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III
Answer: