Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as an intentional relinquishment of a known right,” but which is often construed as “an equitable principle used by courts to avoid harsh results when a party has conducted itself in such a way as to make those results unfair.” Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Leach, 583 F.2d 367, 370 (7th Cir.1978). Neither the district court nor the Kramer states that Plaintiff-Appellant intentionally relinquished her Fourth Amendment claim, nor are we dealing with a hard, judicially recognized bright line for waiver, like the principle that a party waives on appeal any argument that it does not present to the district court. This bright-line principle backs the numerous waiver cases cited by Defendant-Appellee Kramer in her brief. See, e.g., Teumer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 34 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir.1994) ; Colburn v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 973 F.2d 581,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case
B. holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory
C. holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory
D. holding that the failure to draw the district courts attention to an applicable legal theory waives pursuit of that theory in this court
E. holding that appellate courts may uphold a trial courts ruling on any legal theory or basis applicable to the case but may not reverse a trial courts ruling on any theory or basis that might have been applicable to the case but was not raised
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.