Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
held that if a demand for repayment of an oral loan is not made within a reasonable time analogous to the statute of limitations, the claim is barred. See DeSouza, 708 So.2d at 993. The decisions in Stoudenmire and De-Souza are in accord with the majority of other jurisdictions that have held or recognized that statutes of limitation for actions based on oral promises to pay money that do not contain provisions for the time of repayment begin to run from the date the promises were made. See Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, When Statute of Limitations Begins To Run Against Action Based On Unwritten Promise To Pay Money Where There Is No Condition Or Definite Time for Repayment, 14 A.L.R.4th 1385 (1982 & Supp.2001); see also In re Estate of Musgrove, 144 Ariz. 168, 696 P.2d 720 (Ct.App.1985) ; In re Estate of Whitehead, 895 S.W.2d 129,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in an action on a verbal agreement which failed to specify time for repayment that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until reasonable time for repayment had passed
B. holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss
C. holding that the statute of limitations for a miscalculation of benefits claim began to run at the time at which some event other than a denial of a claim should have alerted the claimant to his entitlement to the benefits he did not receive
D. holding that where oral loan was silent as to the time of repayment the statute of limitations began to run at the time the contract was made
E. holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.