With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stated that he reviewed the estimates and found them to be reasonable, and the court overruled the objection. The court cited Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 464 A.2d 1243 (1983), for the proposition that the duty to find damages lies with the fact finder and should not be interfered with unless it clearly appears that the award resulted from partiality caprice, prejudice, corruption or other improper influence. The court stated that Schaefer disputed only whether the items were necessary and that it reviewed the evidence and awarded only amounts that were Schaefer’s responsibility. Schaefer argues that the hearsay estimates did not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, citing In re Gillen, 236 Pa.Super. 521, 344 A.2d 706 (1975) (<HOLDING>), or any other exception under Pa. R.E. 803.

A: holding that estimates of costs to repair damaged automobiles not authenticated by the authors or identified by those who requested them did not fall within business records exception
B: holding that affiant sufficiently authenticated records under georgias new evidence code when she after setting out her role and personal access to and knowledge of the records created and maintained by the appellee in the ordinary course of business and the appellees acquisition of the documents through a transfer referenced and authenticated the various documents attached to her affidavit as exhibits
C: holding that documents that were not created by but that were received maintained and relied upon by a business are business records under  8036
D: holding that an automobiles title history was admissible under the public records exception
A.