Pepsi representatives signed a contract with H-E-B to sell a large batch of bottled water for $200,000, payable on delivery. The sales contract between Pepsi and H-E-8 says nothing about whether assignments are allowed or not. At the time, Pepslowed $199,000 to Zeta Corp., so when Pepsi delivered the bottled water to H-E-B, Pepsi assigned to Zeta all of its rights to receive money under the bottled water contract with H-E-B. Zota informed H-E-B of the assignment and demanded that H-E-B make its payment on the bottled water shipment directly to Zeta. If H-E-8 refuses to pay Zuta, and it Zeta thon sues H-E-B to collect the $200,000, then A. Zeta prevails, because assignments are generally valid and the contract between Pepel and H-E-B does not prevent such an assignment. B. H-E-B prevails because the assignment is for an atmount that is greater than the amount that Pepal owed Zeta, so the assignment is against public policy and therefore void C. H-E-B pravalls because it did not give permission for the assignment. D. Zeta prevails, because assignments are always valid