Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
858 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex.1993) (plurality op.). Accordingly, Tello has not demonstrated that there was a genuine issue of material fact on his DTPA counterclaim against the Bank. We overrule his fourth issue. C. Tello’s Affirmative Defenses In his second and third issues, Tello contends he raised a fact issue on his affirmative defenses of fraudulent inducement and equitable estoppel sufficient to defeat the Bank’s motion for summary judgment. Tello generally refers to his affidavit, but other than the general summary judgment standards, he cites no authority. He does not cite the elements of the doctrines of fraudulent inducement and equitable estoppel, much less argue why his affidavit raised a fact issue on each element of these defenses. See Sunnyside Feedyard, 106 S.W.3d at 173 . Nevertheless, in response to the motion for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in an action brought by alleged wife for permanent alimony suit money attorneys fees and restraining order an issue of fact existed concerning whether a commonlaw marriage existed thus precluding summary judgment
B. holding that standing existed
C. holding appellant waived contention that fact issue existed on legal doctrines sufficient to defeat summary judgment by referring to welldeveloped doctrines without citing basic authority as to their elements or any analysis to show a fact issue existed on these doctrines
D. holding there was fact issue as to whether agency relationship existed based on affiants testifying to alleged oral agreement to serve as agent
E. holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.