Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that has been or may be reasonably incurred, (b) the loss of use of the land, and (c) discomfort and annoyance to him . as an occupant." (Emphases added). Bonewitz and Dellinger presented evidence regarding the approximate value of their home absent the nuisance, as well as evidence that their home is not currently marketable. Thus, the evidence shows that the home's value has been greatly diminished by its close proximity to Parker's business. A proper measure of damages shall be calculated as the difference between the market value of the Bonewitz home if the Parker By-Products myeceli-um-drying operation ceased and its current market value with an active nuisance next door. See, e.g., Northern Ind. Public Serv. Co. v. W.J. & M.S. Vesey, 210 Ind. 338, 200 N.E. 620, 627 (1936) . Further, Bonewitz and Dellinger presented
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages
B. holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market
C. holding measure of damages for unabated nuisance affecting greenhouse was the depreciation of the market value by reason of the continuance of a permanent nuisance
D. holding that if respondents suit is one for permanent damages to the land the measure of damages is the decreased value of the land
E. holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.