Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
concludes that Syracuse is not entitled to any damages related to the removal of the certification tags. La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2002 (a contracting party “must make reasonable efforts to mitigate” damages caused by another’s breach of contract). B. Orion’s Breach of Contract Claim Against Syracuse 1. Bar to Recovery of Damages by Syracuse The core of Orion’s affirmative defenses is that Syracuse cannot recover on his claim because he breached the Agreement while Orion fully performed. See, e.g., B.F. Edington Drilling Co. v. Yearwood, 239 La. 303, 118 So.2d 419, 422 (1960) (concluding that party that installed well could not obtain payment of the contract price because the well did not meet the contract specifications); City of Houma v. C-Well Ltd., 515 So.2d 646, 648 (La.Ct.App.1987) ; Copeland v. Drury, 494 So.2d 1189, 1193
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that absent an independent tort a plaintiff alleging a breach of contract may only seek to recover the damages flowing from the breach
B. holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach
C. holding that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith
D. holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract
E. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.