Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
consideration of whether these preparation expenses are compensable under another theory of damages. See Maj. Op. at 1043 n. 9. This court has considered issues raised for the first time on appeal in “those cases in which the courts below were not presented with and did not consider the governing theory of law.” Aguon v. Calvo, 829 F.2d 845, 848 (1987). It is basic contract law that “the injured party has a right to damages based on his reliance interest, including expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance,” when expectation damages are, for whatever reason, unavailable. Restatement (Second) Contracts § 349. Cases cited in the majority opinion uphold the right to such damages under FIRREA. See Nashville Lodging Co. v. RTC, 59 F.3d 236, 245-46 (D.C.Cir.1995) ; cf. Monrad v. FDIC, 62 F.3d 1169, 1173-74
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under section 504
B. holding reliance damages recoverable under firrea
C. holding punitive damages not recoverable under 2715
D. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under viwda
E. holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the flsa
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.