Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Admission Agreement would be equally vulnerable. {39} Additionally, we disagree with the district court’s comments in the present case that a written power of attorney or an enumerated list authorizing Ms. Chapman to take each specific step was required to indicate the scope of her agency. Rather, Ms. Barron, as the principal, was in a position to limit her agent’s authority if she so chose. Cf. Comstock, 110 N.M. at 132, 793 P.2d at 262 (stating that “[i]t is always competent for a principal to limit the authority of his agent, and if such limitations have been brought to the attention of the party with whom the agent is dealing, the power to bind the principal is defined thereby”); Morris Oil Co. v. Rainbow Oilfield Trucking, Inc., 106 N.M. 237, 240, 741 P.2d 840, 844 (Ct.App.1987) . Furthermore, the law in New Mexico is that an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant
B. holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party
C. holding that even in a multiple claimant situation a court can lift the stay and allow state court suits if the claimants enter a stipulation that the court determines will adequately protect the limitation plaintiff under the limitation act including a stipulation that will protect the limitation plaintiff against third party indemnification claims
D. recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation
E. holding that when an agent has limited authority and informs the third party of this limitation the principal is not bound by the agents actions that exceed that authority
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.