Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on which he relied is barred “from seeking relief pursuant to FDUTPA, as he acted unreasonably.” Rosa v. Amoco Oil Co., 262 F.Supp.2d 1364, 1368 (S.D.Fla.2003). Here, the terms of the reinstated contract are inconsistent with the alleged misrepresentations upon which the Buyer supposedly relied. The contract provided that TRG made no representations regarding governmental approvals and expressly re moved any references to the “Intended Use” of 218 units for the property. As such, the Buyer could not justifiably rely on any representations from TRG concerning governmental approvals and the number of units that could be built on the property. The trial court should have granted TRG’s motion for a directed verdict. See St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. Cowart, 891 So.2d 1039, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) . Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party
B. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict
C. holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict
D. holding that a motion for directed verdict should be granted if there is no evidence on which a jury could legally base a verdict for damages against the moving party
E. holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.