972 F.2d 1067, 1068 (9th Cir.1992). Such a determination can involve close questions, such as when a loan is used for investment purposes. See id. at 1069-70; Thorns v. Sundance Properties, 726 F.2d 1417, 1419 (9th Cir.1984) (applying the Truth in Lending Act). However, where a loan is used for a home mortgage, the answer is virtually ministerial. The remaining two questions overwhelm the common and ministerial questions such that they must be considered in individual trials, rather than as part of a class action. First, the causation questions raised by the WCPA claim requires each class member to prove that “the defendant’s act or practice caused injury to the plaintiff in his or her business or property.” See, e.g., Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Second, questions regarding damages will
holding that where a merger clause is included in the written contract alleged collateral promises will not be enforced through fraud because under fraud the reliance must be reasonable holding the class too imprecise and speculative to be certified holding that a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed