Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
are accessible only to the seller and could not be discovered by the buyer. In Lingsch v. Savage, 29 Cal.Rptr. 201 (Cal.Ct.App. 1963), the rule was stated as follows when dealing with an “as is” sale: [W]here the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property which are known or accessible only to [the seller] and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. Id. at 204. Other courts have followed this rule and recognized that an “as is” provision in a contract for the sale of realty does not preclude an action by the buyer for nondisclosure. See, e.g., Rayner v. Wise Realty Co., 504 So.2d 1361 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1987) ; Silva v. Stevens, 589 A.2d 852 (Vt. 1991)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606
B. holding that a real estate agent does not owe a buyer a duty independent of the agency relationship with the seller
C. holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did
D. holding an arbitration clause contained in confirmations sent to buyer by seller was part of parties course of dealing and therefore part of the contract after buyer had repeated opportunities to object to the clause and had failed to do so
E. holding as is clause does not bar a claim for nondisclosure against real estate agency that failed to inform buyer of damage to home from prior termite infestation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.