Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of, or immediately after, the return of the verdict.” Azimi v. Jordan’s Meats, Inc., 456 F.3d 228, 240 (1st Cir.2006) (emphasis added). The Azimi court noted that this rule allows a plaintiff to avoid the tactical dilemma that occurs when a plaintiff is forced to choose between asking for only compensatory damages and risking a zero-dollar verdict, on one hand, or requesting a nominal damages instruction and giving the jury an easy “out” on the other hand. Id. Miller argues that this is the dilemma he faced. Before addressing the tactical dilemma issue, it must first be noted that, although .the First Circuit has adopted an exception to Rule 51(c)(2), many circuits that have addressed similar issues have declined to do so. See Oliver v. Falla, 258 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.2001) ; Piaubert v. MacIntosh, 10 Fed.Appx. 503 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in an action for breach of contract only nominal damages can be recovered if there is no evidence produced from which the facts necessary to determine damages under the proper rule can be determined
B. holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict
C. holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict
D. holding that the right to nominal damages for eighth amendment violations can be waived if such damages are not timely requested
E. holding that the first amendment right to free speech is absolute and an award of nominal damages is required even if the defendant fails to object to the nominal damages instruction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.