Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(emphasis added.) As a matter of industry terminology, “not to exceed” or “guaranteed not to exceed” refers to an estimate by which the customer pays the lower of the estimated cost or the actual cost based upon the actual weight and services provided on the estimate. (Id. ¶ 15.) Had Mr. Harrison been disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2), there might have been an argument as to whether his expert opinion on the “industry” meaning of the terms “not to exceed” or “guaranteed not to exceed” would be admissible (especially in light of the fact that Chen is not a member of the moving industry). But there is no doubt that such testimony falls under Rule 702’s category of “specialized knowledge.” See, e.g., WH Smith Hotel Sens., Inc. v. Wendy’s Intl., Inc., 25 F.3d 422, 428-29 (7th Cir.1994) ; but see Harbor Ins. Co. v. Continental Bank
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license
B. holding that court did not err in interpreting lease using testimony of expert in real estate leases
C. holding that trial court did not err
D. holding prospectively that a vendees interest in a real estate contract constitutes real estate within the meaning of the judgment lien statute
E. holding that leases of real property upon which the debtor operated senior nursing homes were not leases of nonresidential real property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.