Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it has no obligation to pay those invoices because Reliable has not shown that it had submitted proper invoices to the City in accordance with the conditions precedent for payment set forth in the contract. In addition, the City maintains that Reliable cannot benefit from the contract (ie. be paid by the City) since it materially breached the contracts when it submitted fraudulent invoices. Although, generally, Reliable would be correct in arguing that its right to payment accrued once conforming goods were delivered to the City, an exception to the rule exists when either a condition precedent has not been fulfilled or when the party has materially breached the contract. John J. Calnan Co. v. Talsma Builders, Inc., 77 Ill.App.3d 221, 32 Ill.Dec. 695, 699, 395 N.E.2d 1076, 1080 (1979) ; Robinhorne Construction Corp. v. Snyder, 113
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a clause making payment by the owner an express condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor was enforceable
B. recognizing that  1983 action does not accrue until conviction or sentence has been invalidated
C. holding that because an indemnitor is not liable until the indemnitee actually makes payment interest does not accrue until the payment is made
D. holding that right to payment does not accrue until condition precedent has been fulfilled
E. holding that an insureds compliance with a condition precedent is not tested by the presence or absence of prejudice to the insurer but only by whether the condition has been fulfilled by the insured under all the circumstances
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.