Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
near a school, Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); and restricted picketing at or near a courthouse, Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965). The reach of the Texas statute, to the contrary, is far more extensive than the regulations that have been upheld, and closely resembles enactments that have been declared unconstitutionally overbroad. See Coates v. City of Cincinatti, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971) (declaring unconstitutional an ordinance making it a criminal offense for “three or more persons to assemble ... on any of the sidewalks ... and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by”). Cf. Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed.2d 1104 (1980) . When a legitimate state interest was not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument
B. holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods
C. holding unconstitutionally overbroad an ordinance outlawing the display of a sign near a business to encourage others not to work or purchase goods there
D. holding that contract requiring buyer to purchase a fixed quantity of goods that amounted to roughly 6080 of its needs was not unlawful because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require the buyer to purchase any amounts of the defendants product that even approached its requirements
E. holding that a creditors pmsi in goods sold to debtors did not survive consolidation of the original installment contract with a later contract for the purchase of additional goods
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.