With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Crandall Dry Dock Eng’rs, Inc., 396 Mass. at 822. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argue that, by legal implication, the defendants warranted their septic systems to be up to code, of merchantable quality, and fit for their ordinary purpose of disposing and treating sewage. The defendants counter that as the only Massachusetts statute to recognize these warranties is Article 2 of the Commonwealth’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), codified at G.L.c. 106, §2-101 et seq., and that as this statute applies only to the sale of goods, it follows that the aforementioned implied warranties can offer no protection to one unhappy with a contract for the construction and sale of structures attached to realty. See White v. Peabody Constr. Co., Inc., 386 Mass. 121, 131-32 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Exclusion from Article 2, however, does not

A: holding that the measure of damages for breaching a building construction contract is ordinarily such sum as is required to make the building conform to the contract
B: holding contracts for the construction or sale of a completed building fall outside the ucc
C: holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed
D: holding that a contract for the design construction and installation of a water tank was predominantly a contract for the sale of goods under the ucc
B.