With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence is lost. [Laird, supra, 279 Cal.Rptr. at 711.] A system that would permit a plaintiff to commence a malpractice claim fifteen years after an attorney renders allegedly negligent advice is simply unacceptable, yet that result might very well occur, assuming a six-year limitations period for the underlying contract claim, and an estimated three years for the trial and appeal of that claim, and another six-year limitations period for the malpractice claim. Such a potential outcome would frustrate the purposes of limitations periods: to protect against the litigation of stale claims; to stimulate litigants to prosecute their claims diligently; and to penalize dilatoriness. Ochs v. Federal Ins. Co., 90 N.J. 108, 112, 447 A.2d 163 (1982); Farrell v. Vota 319 A.2d 781 (Law Div.1974) (<HOLDING>). Even after an adverse ruling, a litigant may

A: holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit
B: holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale
C: holding that plaintiff had discovered facts forming basis of malpractice action before judicial declaration in underlying action
D: holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal
D.