Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
whether facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage’ ”). Whether the party asserting the claim was allowed to introduce specific evidence in support of that claim is an entirely different question, unrelated to deciding whether the same basic legal and factual matters were at issue in both cases. 3. Identity of parties The final element of claim preclusion is established by the fact that the parties to both suits are identical. Plaintiffs are the same and Hass is in privity with defendant AgriBank, his employer and principal. See Great Lakes Trucking Co., Inc. v. Black, 165 Wis.2d 162, 170, 477 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Ct.App.1991) . Plaintiffs do not deny that Hass and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a client is vicariously liable for an attorneys allegedly intentional tortious conduct if the attorney acted as the clients agent
B. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
C. holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party
D. holding that licensed agent is in privity with principal for purpose of establishing identity of parties record establishes classic employeremployee relationship in which corporation is vicariously liable for conduct of agent
E. holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.