In CASE 52,Northeast General Corp

In CASE 5.2,Northeast General Corp.v.Wellington Advertising,Inc.(1993) ,the plaintiff sued to receive a finder's fee for acting as an agent to Wellington.Wellington claimed Northeast failed to disclose adverse information and thereby failed in its fiduciary duty.How did the court rule and why?

A) The appellate court refused to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and found that its failure to disclose a material conflict of interest established a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
B) The appellate court ruled that Wellington must pay the finder's fee because the agreement did not contain cognizable fiduciary terms.
C) The court dismissed the case because the defendants' financial losses from their market mishap with Sternau do not provide sufficient reason to advocate a new fiduciary-like doctrine into finders' agreements.
D) The trial court judge set aside the jury's verdict based on public policy imperatives,which imposed a fiduciary-like duty on finders to disclose adverse information to clients; the appellate court upheld this ruling.