Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
destruction, impairment or loss of use of any common element; (E) Matters relating to or affecting the units or interests of the unit owners including but not limited to damages, destruction, impairment or loss of use of a unit or portion thereof, if: (i) Resulting from a nuisance or a defect in or damage to a common element; or (ii) Required to facilitate repair 'to any common elements; and (F)Any other matter to which the association has standing under law or pursuant to the declaration bylaws or any articles of incorporation. Or.Rev.Stat. § 100.405(4)(e). As defined in the statute, “common elements” include the hot and cold water systems. See Or. Rev.Stat. § 100.005(16); see also Ass’n of Unit Owners of Bridgeview Condos. v. Dunning, 187 Or.App. 595, 612-13, 69 P.3d 788 (2003) . Thus, Plaintiff has statutory standing to sue
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that employers have standing to sue
B. holding that when a complaint alleges defects involving common elements a home owners association has standing to sue for damage to noncommon elements as well
C. holding elements of rescission are 1
D. holding the homeowners association had standing to sue under the theory of promissory estoppel
E. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.