Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to act on the principal’s behalf.” (emphasis in original)). Finally, In-tamex and Amaleo observe that the evidence indicated that Hawkspere paid ICTS no commission on the freight that ICTS collected for Hawkspere. Appellants’ Br. at 20. This fact, though, cuts directly against agency, since it indicates that Hawkspere and ICTS lacked any formal relationship at all. On this record, the court was correct to conclude that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether ICTS acted as an actual or apparent agent for Hawkspere when it accepted payment from Intamex and Amaleo. VI. Given that ICTS was not Hawkspere’s agent, it remains only to be determined whether there exists any other basis on which the Shippers might be excused from their liability ., 693 F.Supp. 80, 84 (S.D.N.Y.1988) . Thus, under the approach taken by the Sixth
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that carrier may be estopped from collecting freight charges from shipper who paid freight to consolidator in reliance on carriers representation that such payment would discharge shippers bill of lading obligation
B. holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper
C. holding that carrier is estopped from collecting freight charges from shipper when shipper had paid consolidator in reliance on carriers misrepresentation that it had already received its payment from consolidator and shipper would thus otherwise be unjustifiably liable for double payment
D. holding doctrine of equitable estoppel barred carriers claim against shipper for payment of freight bills after carriers documents and dilatory conduct led shipper to believe that carrier was receiving freight payments from cargo consolidator
E. holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.