Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
David to sell his hundreds of franchises in the U.S., and a "breach" scenario, in which, due to defendants failure to perform, David, three years later, had to set up prototypes himself and then sell the franchises. See D.Mem. re Causation and Damages at 9-13; D.Exh. A. 7 . While the most recent Kenford decision sets forth a stricter rule than previously articulated, prior cases — in both New York and federal courts — have also set forth high standards for when lost profits for new businesses can be awarded. These cases make clear that lost profit claims by new businesses must be certain, specific, and precise. See, e.g., Hirschfeld v. IC Securities, Inc., 132 A.D.2d 332, 521 N.Y.S.2d 436, 439 (1st Dep’t.1987), appeal dism’d, 72 N.Y.2d 841, 530 N.Y.S.2d 556, 526 N.E.2d 47 (1988) ; Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that such damages could be recovered but only if the plaintiffs were experienced in the business and if the lost profits could be ascertained with some certainty
B. holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so
C. holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits
D. holding that the plaintiffs attempted to recover lost profits which under the facts of the case were consequential damages
E. holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.