Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
N.W.2d 406, 407 (1969) (“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”). Although Had-gu contends that Owens’ reliability is questionable, that credibility was attacked on cross-examination, and it is the “exclusive function of the jury” to judge the credibility of witnesses. Dale v. State, 535 N.W.2d 619, 623 (Minn.1995). The jury convicted Hadgu despite attacks on Owens’ credibility, and this court must assume the jury believed Owens. Moore, 438 N.W.2d at 108. Hadgu also contends the police failed to use available means to verify and corroborate Owens’ testimony. But there is no requirement that the state corroborate Owens’ testimony because he was not an accomplice to Hadgu. See State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 556, 229 N.W.2d 29, 32 (1975) . There is merit in Hadgu’s contention that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation
B. holding that the seller of a business implicitly transferred a property right in the firms good will to the buyer and that the seller could not then impair that right by actively soliciting the customers of his former business
C. holding that a person who obtains drugs from a seller is not an accomplice of the seller
D. holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent
E. holding that purchaser could rescind contract where seller failed to disclose a fact  the flooding of the subject real estate  that seller knew purchaser would regard as material
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.