Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
time prior to the closing of this transaction, Buyer agrees that such filing shall constitute a material breach of the terms of both this Purchase and Sale Agreement and its lease with Seller and Seller may ... retain any and all monies paid to it by Buyer, whether in the form, of earnest money or lease payments, as liquidated damages which sum Buyer and Seller agree would be fair and reasonable liquidated damages to Seller for such breach of this Agreement.... Thus, although the amendments to RE-21 did not specifically state that making the earnest money non-refundable was an advance election of remedies, when Phillips availed himself of the earnest money, he foreclosed his ability to pursue actual damages. See, e.g., McMullin v. Shimmin, 10 Utah 2d 142, 349 P.2d 720, 720-21 (1960) . Further, the parties’ intent is supported by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent
B. holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla
C. holding that the sellers retention of the deposit evidenced an election of liquidated damages by the seller
D. holding that liquidated damages under fair labor standards act constitutes compensation for the retention of a workmans pay which might result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages
E. holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.