Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
implied by silence or failure to act after the nonbreaching partners learn of the breach”). A rule that acquiescence, waiver, or ratification is sufficient would be consistent with analogous rules governing corporate opportunities. See, e.g., Impala Platinum, Ltd. v. Impala Sales (USA), 283 Md. 296, 324, 389 A.2d 887 (1978) (fiduciary duty is "to make full disclosure of all known information”); Maryland Metals v. Metzner, 282 Md. 31, 46-47, 382 A.2d 564 (1978) (shareholder may pursue corporate opportunity when corporation makes clear its lack of interest or abandons previously expressed interest). Contrary to the Partnership's contention, we have not resolved this question in the partnership opportunity context. See Dixon v. Trinity Joint Venture, 49 Md.App. 379, 431 A.2d 1364 (1981) . 11 . See, e.g., Thomas v. Schmelzer, 118
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the texas uniform partnership act the government was entitled to collect the  tax liability indisputably a partnership debt from any one of the general partners
B. holding that when former partners continued business in same place with same name and continued use of trademarks and brands in canning business after dissolution of partnership goodwill existed separate and apart from individual partners
C. holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether  9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice
D. holding that partners may not agree to eliminate the fiduciary character of their relationship
E. holding that under california law partners are personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership including its tax liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.