Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
but rather, it is a case about design of a factory to which we apply principles of ordinary negligence.”). We note that the legislature has enacted separate statutes of repose for strict liabil ity claims against sellers and manufacturers and claims against design professionals who design improvements to real property. Compare Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 16.008(a) (ten-year statute of repose for design professionals), with id. § 16.012(b) (West 2002) (fifteen-year period of repose for manufacturers and sellers). Additionally, chapter 150 of the Civil Pra vices, L.P. v. Gomez De Hernandez, for the proposition that Jenkins was required to prove that the acid addition system was a product and that Occidental placed it in the stream of commerce. See 249 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Tex.2008) . But New Texas Auto Auction did not involve a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a purchaser of assets may be liable for a sellers delinquent erisa fund contributions to vindicate important federal statutory policy where the buyer had notice of the liability prior to the sale and there exists sufficient evidence of continuity of operations between the buyer and seller emphasis added
B. 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
C. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
D. holding that plaintiffs who were in the car during car accident could recover for emotional damages because they were within zone of danger
E. holding that auctioneer who handled sale of car between seller and buyer could not be held liable for allegedly defective condition of car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.