Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Castle, 913 S.W.2d 627, 633 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, writ denied). Rule 263 requires that the parties submit the agreed statement to the clerk and that the court certify it. However, even when the parties fail to conform to the technical requirements of the rule, an appellate court may treat the case as one involving an agreed statement of facts under rule 263 if the record indicates that the trial court heard the case on stipulated facts. See Kessler, 932 S.W.2d at 736 (finding no statement of facts necessary for review where order stated that the court considered only the motion before it, the attached exhibits, the brief in response, and the arguments of counsel); Lambda Const. Co. v. Chamberlin Waterproofing and Roofing Sys., 784 S.W.2d 122, 125 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) . In the present case, the trial court’s final
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding fact issue existed regarding foreseeability of murder at restaurant where police records indicated history of crime in the area
B. holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs
C. holding that no issue of material fact existed as to the reasonableness of an employers response where the offending employee was promptly suspended and fired
D. holding case tried on stipulated facts where order indicated that the parties agreed during telephone hearing with the court that no material issue of fact existed
E. holding order nonfinal where parties agreed to reserva tion on issue ripe for adjudication and tried by parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.