Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
5708, can justify a contrary result. We decline to accept Cooper’s invitation to place the burden on the defendant to request a nominal damages instruction. Cooper was the party seeking a finding of actual injury and, as such, bore the responsibility of requesting a nominal damages instruction if it wanted the jury to consider that option. Of course, Cooper may well have decided for tactical reasons that it did not want the jury to consider that option. But whether Cooper failed to request an instruction on nominal damages by choice or inadvertence, it should bear the consequences. Because Cooper did not request such an instruction, it cannot now contend that we should infer a finding of nominal damages. See Walker v. Anderson Electrical Connectors, 944 F.2d 841, 844-45 (11th Cir.1991) , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1043, 122
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict
B. holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages
C. holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them
D. holding that the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages in a breach of contract regarding a fire appraisal
E. holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.