Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
performance on the contract, potential errors in the work performed, and the ultimate breach of contract where MLS stopped all performance. Since the breach of contract stems from the performance or lack of performance of professional services, the proper statute of limitations is KRS 413.245. II. Gardiner’s cause of action has accrued and is time barred Cross-appellant, WHF asserts that even if the proper statute of limitations is KRS 413.245, the action is not time barred because the action against MLS has not yet accrued. In particular WHF asks this Court to hold that damages would not accrue until the damages are “fixed and nonspeculative.” Alagia, Day, Trautwein & Smith v. Broadbent, 882 S.W.2d 121, 126 (Ky.1994). See also Meade County Bank v. Wheatley, 910 S.W.2d 233 (Ky.1995) . Such a standard would toll the statute of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that for setoff purposes    a debt is due when the bank has the power to deem the debt due not when the bank actually exercises that power
B. holding that damages were not fixed until a bank actually sold certain property and the deficiency between the price of the house and debt owed was apparent
C. holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt
D. holding that vehicle debt imposed on debtor by divorce court was debt owed to or recoverable by financing bank not exwife so not a domestic support obligation
E. holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.