Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that intent is not an element of a cause of action for the laundry list violation of “representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law.” Id. at 289-90 (citing Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 17.46(b)(12)). We agree with the court of appeals that the rationale of Crawford v. Ace Sign would not automatically foreclose a DTPA cause of action when a contract or a part thereof is void by operation of law. But a contract is a mutual undertaking. An aspect of an agreement that proves unenforceable because it is against public policy does not, standing alone, constitute a violation of section 17.46(b)(12). There must be something more. Cf. Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671-72 (Tex.1990) . There must be a representation “that an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence legally insufficient
B. holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees
C. holding evidence legally sufficient under sections d and e
D. holding that evidence of representations outside the contract was legally sufficient evidence to support a section 1746b12 claim
E. holding evidence legally sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.