With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". if the jury finds such intent, there is circumstantial evidence from which it might reasonably ascertain the beginning and ending dates of such one-year period. In view of the fact that the jury’s determination of these issues will necessarily require an analysis of all evidence adduced at trial, we make no comment regarding the factual sufficiency or weight to be accorded 0); Patton v. Wilson, 220 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1949, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In this regard, Texas courts have long held that expenditure of time and effort is sufficient consideration to make a unilateral contract binding and enforceable. Sunshine v. Manos, 496 S.W.2d 195, 198 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Miles v. Briggs, 18 S.W.2d 850, 852 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1929, -writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>). Conclusions and Holding Based on our review

A: holding that parties who knowingly receive benefits from agents efforts cannot later deny their liability to him as principals
B: holding that central bank did not shield business entities from being held liable for misstatements of their agents since a corporation can only act through its employees and agents  an allegation that a particular agent may have doctored or conveyed the report will not immunize the principals from liability for a knowing deception
C: holding that it was error to dismiss complaint against individual defendants who had acted as agents of corporate trustee who could be held personally liable
D: holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment
A.