Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
comply is section 6 of the Act, which provides: “In no event shall it be necessary to fix or stipulate in any contract a time for the completion or a time for payment in order to obtain a lien under this act, provided, that the work is done or material furnished within three years from the commencement of said work or the commencement of furnishing said material.” 770 ILCS 60/6 (West 2002). Based on the plain language of section 6, “the 3-year period commences with the beginning of work for which the mechanic’s lien is asserted and not with the date upon which the contract for such work was entered into.” (Emphasis added.) Robb v. Lindquist, 23 Ill. App. 3d 186, 188 (1974); see also Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 870, 877 (2009) (Cordeck Sales II) . Accordingly, if the work for which a lien
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
B. holding that subcontract requirement that work    be performed in accordance with specifications in prime contract meant that prime contract governed the manner of the performance of the work not    the basis for computing the amount to be paid the subcontractor
C. holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work
D. holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one
E. recognizing that  the work to be completed in accordance with the time limits of section 6 is the work for which lien enforcement is sought
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.