With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as not providing coverage to securities transactions); Spinner Corp. v. Princeville Development Corp., 849 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1988) (same result in construing similar provisions in Hawaii’s statute). Skinner and Lindner gave another reason for not applying the Act to securities transactions. This was that to extend the Act to securities transactions would create overlapping supervision, enforcement, and liability in this area, which is already pervasively regulated by state and federal statutes and agencies. The courts concluded there is enough legislative apparatus already in place to govern securities transactions without also applying the Act. Cf. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. v. Hunsucker, 38 N.C. App. 414, 248 S.E.2d 567 (1978), disc. rev. denied, 296 N.C. 583, 254 S.E.2d 32 (1979) (<HOLDING>). These cases are pertinent because we believe

A: holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue
B: holding for similar though not identical reasons that commodities transactions are not covered by the act
C: holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries
D: holding that an identical or nearly identical limitation of liability clause was valid and enforceable under georgia law
B.