Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of PILT. We conclude a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to an explicit warranty of future performance. The existence of such a warranty, however, would not automatically make Marvin’s claim timely. Assuming that a future warranty is present, Marvin’s breach of warranty claim accrued when Marvin learned or should have learned of the breach, see Minn.Stat. § 336.2-725(2), and expires four years thence, see id. § 336.2-725(1). “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run ‘when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the defendant’s refusal or inability to maintain the goods as warranted’ ” WatPro, 491 N.W.2d at 6 (quoting Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333, 335 (Colo.Ct.App.1983)); accord Anderson v. Crestliner, Inc., 564 N.W.2d 218, 223 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) . There is evidence in the record that Marvin
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession
B. holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation
C. holding that a person who obtains drugs from a seller is not an accomplice of the seller
D. holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent
E. holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.