Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
false promise is a fraudulent misrepresentation which can be actionable as fraud_ ... Plaintiff argued to the jury that Capital City ... never intended to allow plaintiff to abide by the terms of the agreement, but intended to foreclose on the property from .the beginning. The 'Court finds that this theory fits comfortably within the law regarding promissory fraud. Capital .City contends that D.C. law recognizes a cause of action for promissory misrepresentation only when the promise is neither memorialized as an explicit contract term (e.g., an undertaking to provide $42,000 on a date certain) nor implied by law in the contract (e.g., the obligation to act with good faith); in other words, the misrepresentation must be a collateral statement of d 1251, 1253-54, 1259 (D.C.Cir.1979) . Some time ago, we observed in a footnote that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract
B. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
C. holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
D. holding that breach of collateral promise was actionable
E. holding negligent misrepresentation must be of existing fact not breach of future promise
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.