Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The West court fundamentally altered products liability law in Florida by creating a new products liability tort action — strict liability in tort — out of the prior breach of implied warranty cases which had done away with privity of contract. In so doing, West necessarily swept away such no-privity, breach of implied warranty cases in favor of the new action of strict liability in tort. Stated differently, the doctrine of strict liability in tort supplants all no-privity, breach of implied warranty cases, because it was, in effect, created out of these cases. This ground-breaking holding, however, did not result in the demise of the contract action of breach of implied warranty, as that action remains, said the West court, where privity of contract is shown. Id. at 692 . The Florida Supreme Court later affirmatively
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
B. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
C. holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract
D. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
E. holding that breach of implied warranty action exists solely as a contract remedy which of necessity requires a privity of contract showing as an essential element of the action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.