Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
particularity forfeits review under the “harmless error” rule. See Scarfo, 54 F.3d at 944; Linn v. Andover Newton Theological School, Inc., 874 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1989); Elwood, 815 F.2d at 175-76; New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. Zermani, 200 F.2d 240, 245 (1st Cir.1952). Consequently, appellate review is lim ited to determining whether a miscarriage of justice would occur were the asserted error not corrected. -See Scarfo, 54 F.3d at 940. WorldCom can demonstrate no miscarriage of justice. First, the “fair market value” standard defined by the district court, see supra 28-29, provided the jury with a just and reasonable measure of damages under Massachusetts law in these circumstances. See Mechanics Nat’l. Bank of Worcester v. Killeen, 377 Mass. 100, 384 N.E.2d 1231, 1239 (1979) ; Hall v. Paine, 224 Mass. 62, 112 N.E. 153,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the new jersey real estate licensing act is applicable to the sale of a company through a stock sale
B. holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market
C. holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale
D. holding that chapter 8 of colorados ucc applied to the sale of shares in a corporation whose entire stock was held by one individual
E. holding stock transfer restriction in corporate bylaws did not prevent levy against and sale of stock by third party in order to pay judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.