Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
second day of trial, after AUE had, the City contends, elected its damages remedy by moving for summary judgment on liability on a breach of contract theory. We review questions of law de novo, see L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. OSI Sys., Inc., 607 F.3d 24, 27-28 (2d Cir.2010), and conclude that the City’s arguments lack merit. First, although summary judgment is generally treated as the procedural equivalent of a trial, see S.J. Capelin Assocs., Inc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341, 357 N.Y.S.2d 478, 313 N.E.2d 776 (1974), AUE’s motion for summary judgment addressed liability alone. Hence, to the extent the motion was the equivalent of a trial for these purposes, it did not address damages or rescission at all. Cf. Reilly v. Natwest Markets Grp. Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 263 (2d Cir.1999) . AUE cannot be deemed to have elected its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding quantum meruit unavailable to remedy invalid contract
B. holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract
C. holding supreme court had jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of evidence in subcontractors action against project owner seeking recovery under equitable doctrine of quantum meruit rather than recovery based on contract
D. holding that the evidence was insufficient for the statute of limitations to bar recovery of a quantum meruit cause of action
E. holding that a discharged firms recovery is limited to quantum meruit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.