With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the contract. Turning next to DeCelle’s erroneous identification of some of the pools depicted in the promotional material as ones constructed by the Defendant, the Court does not believe that this constitutes a fraudulent representation. DeCelle testified that he presented the “Pitch Book” for the purpose of giving customers design ideas. Moreover, Joseph Gwizdz, Sr., testified that the Defendant company could build all the pools and related structures illustrated in the promotional literature. Absent proof of a deliberate, and intentionally deceptive, concealment of the fact that Lewis Aquatech did not construct pools depicted in the literature, such nondisclosure does not violate the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. See Lambert v. Downtown Garage, Inc., 262 Va. 707, 714 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The Court is also not convinced that

A: holding that defendants representation that plaintiff would lose no more than 7500 and omission of high risk was a violation of section 4b of the act
B: holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant
C: holding that a violation of the act founded upon a material omission must be deliberate
D: holding a violation of the travel act
C.