In Bearden V

In Bearden v. Wardley Corp., where Bearden sued Wardley because one of its agents, Gritton, bought a house from her and then cheated her on the transaction, the court held that:

A) Gritton was liable for breaching his duty to Bearden, but Wardley had no knowledge of Gritton's actions so was not liable
B) Gritton was liable for theft, but not for breach of his duty as an agent to Bearden, since that relationship expired before Gritton cheated Bearden
C) Gritton and Wardley violated their fiduciary obligations to Bearden, so both are liable
D) neither party was liable to Bearden because the contract was legitimate and her claim that she had been cheated by her agent, Gritton, was unfounded
E) none of the other choices