In Lindh V

In Lindh v.Surman,the case in the text,the majority of the court:

A) held that Lindh was entitled to the ring because his reasons for breaking off the engagement were objectively reasonable under the circumstances presented.
B) held that Surman was entitled to keep the ring because Lindh,without a justifiable excuse,broke off the engagement for the second time.
C) adopted a fault approach to the resolution of engagement ring disputes.
D) adopted a no-fault approach to the resolution of engagement ring disputes.