With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Synergy contends that LHC ratified the August 10 contract by accepting its commission from Kiwi. However, LHC was entitled to receive a commission from Kiwi based on the July 15 insertion orders. Acceptance of something to which LHC was already entitled does not ratify a separate contract. Further, uncontradicted testimony shows that LHC did not know the August 10 contract existed until after Kiwi filed for bankruptcy in September 1996, which was after LHC received its commission on August 26, 1996. To ratify an agent’s act, Georgia law requires that the principal be aware of all relevant material facts before or at the time of ratification. Bresnakan, 230 Ga.App. at 391, 496 S.E.2d at 354. See also Hyer v. Citizens & Southern Nat’l Bank, 188 Ga.App. 452, 453, 373 S.E.2d 391 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Synergy also contends that LHC ratified the

A: holding that a failure to prove one essential element necessarily renders all other facts immaterial
B: holding that ratification requires full knowledge of all the facts upon which the unauthorized action was taken
C: holding that ratification necessarily implies complete knowledge of all material facts relating to the transaction
D: holding that a plaintiff does not have to possess actual knowledge of all the relevant facts in order for the cause of action to accrue
C.