Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a default provision similar to that applicable in the instant case. The Lamberth Court recognized an equitable interest in a vendee under an executory agreement for the sale of land, stating: It has been held repeatedly that “the relation between vendor and vendee in an executory agreement for the sale and purchase of land is substantially that subsisting between mortgagee and mortgagor, and governed by the same general rules.” Lamberth, 506 S.E.2d at 296. In expanding on this view, the court found in the event of default, a vendor-mortgagee may choose a variety of remedies, including forfeiture if the contract allows, while a vendee-mortgagor has the right to redeem his interest under the contract to prevent forfeiture. See also Boyd v. Watts, 316 N.C. 622, 342 S.E.2d 840 (1986) . The court further held a vendee’s right to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the cause of action
B. recognizing private right of action
C. holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment
D. recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud
E. recognizing among a vendors options in the case of a default the right to initiate a quiet title action accept noncompliance as a forfeiture or initiate an action to declare the contract at an end
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.