Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the purchase price owed under the contract was not excused. Question 4 included no grounds for excusing Bartush’s failure to comply with the agreement except the existence of a prior material breach by Cimco; other grounds for excusing Bartush’s failure to comply were submitted in question 5, and the jury answered no to that question also. See, e.g., Tex. Standard Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Frankel Offshore Energy, Inc., 394 S.W.3d 753, 779 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (refusing to construe jury’s answer to excuse question as finding that party’s first-occurring breach was immaterial when excuse question combined prior-material-breach ground with other excuse grounds); Miller v. Kennedy & Minshew, Prof'l Corp., 142 S.W.3d 325, 341 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied) . Consequently, although the court’s charge
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach
B. holding unchallenged jury finding that defendants subsequentlyoccurring breach was not excused by plaintiffs prior material breach required defendant to pay plaintiff per the terms of the agreement
C. holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
D. holding plaintiff not required to perform its residual contract obligations after defendants material breach
E. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.