Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for detrimental reliance upon the County’s issuance of BP2005-70, occupational tax certificates, and representations by County officials. Again, we agree. Lewis cannot state a claim for detrimental reliance where, as here, the County erroneously issued the permit for a “commercial” outbuilding. The issuance of a permit was permissible only for an outbuilding, i.e., an accessory structure for secondary uses, like a garage or storage. Loretta Riggins-Hylton, planning director of the County’s planning and building department, deposed that a commercial building would not qualify as an outbuilding. Since the permit was mistakenly issued, Lewis did not have a vested right to complete the construction of his building. Enviro Pro v. Emanuel County, 265 Ga. App. 309, 312 (593 SE2d 673) (2004) . Likewise, “[w]here a permit is issued by a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that acts of promissory fraud  which require proof that the defendants intended not to perform promised acts  were not protected by stateagent immunity
B. holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred
C. holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
D. holding that party did not waive right to trial by jury by requesting directed verdict
E. holding ultra vires acts by chairperson did not vest right
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.