Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to allow all express warranties of limited duration to impliedly exclude or modify implied warranties. Instead, we base our holding on the fact that here, paragraph 55’s global warranty was incorporated into the specifications, and even the commentary to § 12A:2-316 recognizes that the instance in which a “buyer gives precise and complete specifications to the seller” is not the ordinary circumstance that the section is designed to address. Nevertheless, we believe our holding is in line with the general purpose of § 12A:2-316, which, according to the commentary, is to ensure that there are no surprises concerning which warranties accompany the goods sold. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:2-316 cmt. n. 1. See also Travel Craft, Inc. v. Wilhelm Mende GmbH & Co., 552 N.E.2d 443, 445 (Ind.1990) . Because we conclude that in this case there
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to apply indcode  26123162 which is identical to  12a2316 in favor of  the buyer and drafter of the warranty would subject the seller to the same type of surprise the provision is intended to prevent
B. holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession
C. holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation
D. 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
E. holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.