With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and its investments. In the case at bar, the members of Subclass A performed duties they believed were imposed upon them as a result of proceedings that had been conducted in conformity with the law. Unlike the Caviness financial statements, the TranSouth notices presented the inherent threat of further legal process to collect debts. Further, it may be concluded that the deficiency judgments caused consumers to acquiesce to the churning scheme. Finally, Caviness was not a case seeking to proceed under Rule 23. As other courts discussed and this Court noted earlier, special concerns are raised under Rule 23 that must also be weighed. Often reliance is a matter that is demonstrated inferentially and by circumstantial proof. Cf. Cook v. Hayden, 183 Va. 203, 209, 31 S.E.2d 625 (1944) (<HOLDING>). The proof of reliance in the instant case may

A: holding that mcdonnell douglas framework which is used in title vii cases applies to ada cases when only circumstantial evidence of discrimination is offered
B: holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance
C: holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive
D: holding in analyzing reliance under common law fraud that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but in most cases is the only proof that can be adduced
D.