With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". concluded that the jury’s finding of unconscionable conduct was necessarily referable to a DTPA-based mental anguish recovery. The court further held that it would deem a “knowing” finding necessary to such a recovery because GSU did not object to the question’s omission from the charge. 75 S.W.3d 449, 453. We disagree. Rule 279 may support a deemed finding only when it can be deemed found “in such manner as to support the judgment.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 279. Here, the trial court’s judgment was for $12,100 based on the jury findings. The court of appeals misapplied Rule 279 to deem a finding, not to support the trial court’s judgment, but to render a new judgment for actual damages in an amount nearly fifteen times the trial court’s award. See Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605, 609 (Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>). Because the court of appeals erred in relying

A: holding that court of appeals erred by deeming a finding in support of the verdict instead of the trial courts final judgment
B: holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict
C: holding that the court of appeals may not reverse a trial courts judgment in the absence of properly assigned error
D: holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals
A.