Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Feb. 14, 2012) (Lauriat, J.); Lantor Inc. v. Ellis, Civil No. 98-01064, 1998 WL 726502, **9-10 [9 Mass. L. Rptr. 221] (Norfolk Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 1998) (Gants, J.). “It is well settled that a material breach of contract by one party excuses the other party from performance as matter of law.. .” HRPT Advisers, Inc. v. MacDonald, Levine, Jenkins & Co., P.C., 43 Mass.App.Ct. 613, 626 n.16 (1997), citing Hastings Assocs., Inc. v. Local 369 Bldg. Fund, Inc., 42 Mass.App.Ct. 162, 171 (1997). Therefore, the question of Colameta’s conduct only becomes relevant if the court determines as a matter of law that Protégé’s conduct did not constitute a material breach of the 2007 Employment Agreement that discharged Colameta’s obligations under that agreement. See, e.g., Ward, 15 Mass.App.Ct. at 101 . A breach is material if it is “of ‘an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that no reporters record was required in suit to recover damages for breach of employment contract because the claim for damages was liquidated and proved by the employment contract attached to the petition
B. holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract
C. holding only a material breach discharges contractors duty to perform
D. holding that employers wrongful discharges of the plaintiffs constituted breaches of the employment agreements so material as to discharge the plaintiffs from any further obligations under the contracts ie covenants not to compete and to allow them to recover contract damages for total breach
E. holding that if the breach of an entire contract is only partial the plaintiff can recover only such damages as he or she has sustained leaving prospective damages to a later suit in the event of further breaches
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.