Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
non-diverse agents, holding that where “[the principal’s] liability, like that of the two employees, was, in effect, predicated upon the alleged [misconduct] of the latter, the showing manifestly went to the merits of the action as an entirety, and not to the joinder.” 232 U.S. at 153, 34 S.Ct. 278. Likewise, in Hauck this Court refused to find fraudulent joinder on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of a diverse principal and its non-diverse agent, given that “any resolution of [the agent’s] liability necessarily operates to discharge the liability of [the principal] as well because ... the liability of [the principal] in this case is, at least in part, derivative of that of its agent.” 2006 WL 1 . 4:03CV0034-P-B, 2004 WL 555250, at *2 (N.D.Miss. Mar.15, 2004) ; Polk v. Lifescan, Inc., No. Civ A.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the liability of a principal or master to a third person based upon respondeat superior is purely derivative and thus a judgment on the merits for or against the agent or servant is res judicata visavis the principal or master though he was not a party to the action
B. holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted
C. 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
D. holding that the common claims or defenses test applies to a claim of fraudulent joinder asserted by a diverse principal as to a nondiverse agent because a finding of fraudulent joinder as to the agent necessarily involves a decision on the merits as to the principal given the doctrine of respondeat superior
E. holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.