With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". New Jersey resident who wanted to practice law there; (ii) he also knew that the plaintiff could not sit for the New Jersey bar unless he graduated from an accredited law school; (in) he sent a letter to the plaintiff in New Jersey stating that SNESL was “highly confident” of receiving accreditation, knowing that this statement was materially false because SNESL had substantial deficiencies that would make accreditation difficult if not impossible; and (iv) the plaintiff, relying on Larkin’s letter, enrolled at SNESL, paid substantial sums for tuition, and invested three years of his life in mastering its curriculum. We think that these allegations, if proven, would make out a viable claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. See Kerr v. Shurtleff, 218 Mass. 167, 105 N.E. 871, 872 (1914) (<HOLDING>). A similar analysis applies to the plaintiffs

A: holding high school which allowed student secular noncurricular activities to meet on school property was required to provide equal access to a christian student group
B: holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student
C: holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups
D: holding that college committed fraudulent misrepresentation by falsely telling prospective student that it could make him a dmd when student enrolled and graduated but school lacked the authority to grant the degree
D.