Reference - Portraits

Reference - Portraits. Belinda, a famous portrait painter, agreed to paint Harry's portrait for $5,000. She also agreed to paint the portraits of Michelle's two Welsh Corgi dogs, Baby and Bree. Michelle agreed to pay Belinda $12,000 for the portraits. Belinda charged Michelle more because dogs annoyed her. Belinda met the spoiled dogs, and they really got on her nerves. Plus, she was behind on finishing Harry's portrait. Belinda, therefore, proceeded to assign the right to receive the money for the dog portraits and the duty to paint the dog portraits to her assistant, Fred. He eagerly accepted and painted the portraits. As payment for amounts she owed him for various duties, Belinda also assigned to Fred the right to receive payment from Harry. Neither the contract Belinda had with Harry nor the contract she had with Michelle expressly prohibited assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties. Belinda finished the portrait of Harry and called him to come and pick it up. Meanwhile, a disgruntled secretary who disliked Belinda told both Michelle and Harry about the agreements with Fred. Michelle was furious and refused to pick up the portrait or pay anyone. Harry likewise refused to pay for his portrait claiming that the right to payment could not be assigned. What would be the most likely result if Belinda sues Michelle for the $12,000 payment?

A) Belinda will win only if Fred did a good job on the portraits.
B) Belinda will win regardless of what type of job Fred did on the portraits so long as he was a qualified portrait painter.
C) Belinda will win regardless of whether Fred was qualified and regardless of whether he did a good job because the duties were validly delegated, and Michelle's only right of recourse is against Fred.
D) Belinda will win because the contract did not contain an express provision prohibiting assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties.
E) Michelle will win because painting the portrait was personal in nature and could not be delegated.