reversal of the directed verdict on the breach of warranty claim, but I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the directed verdict on the fraud claim. With respect to the fraud claim, the majority opinion indicates that the district court should not have directed a verdict because the jury “could have found that Kehoe recklessly or mistakenly represented the coins to be genuine and that Neff relied to his detriment on such representations.” At 643. The majority opinion fails to discuss whether the jury could have found that Neff’s reliance was reasonable. Under Alabama law, a plaintiff must have reasonably relied on a false representation in order to maintain an action for fraud. See, e.g., Bedwell Lumber Co. v. T & T Corp., 386 So.2d 413, 415 (Ala.1980) (<HOLDING>); Cook v. Brown, 393 So.2d 1016, 1019
holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances recognizing the basic legal proposition that the representees reliance must be reasonable under the circumstances holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance