With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Citizen’s Nat. Bank of Decatur v. Farmer, 395 NE2d 1121, 1123 (Ill. App. 1979) (deficiency action brought by assignee under retail installment contract for sale of motor vehicle following repossession); Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Casaulong, 62 Cal. App. 3d 1024, 1027 (Cal. App. 1976) (deficiency action arising from sale of farm equipment); Palmer, 219 A2d at 860-861. Because the predominant purpose of the Contract was the sale of a good, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it is governed by OCGA § 11-2-725 (l)’s four-year statute of limitation. It is undisputed that SunTrust’s deficiency claim seeking a deficiency judgment was filed more than four years after the cause of action accrued. See Radha Krishna, Inc. v. Desai, 301 Ga. App. 638, 641 (2) (689 SE2d 78) (2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, SunTrust’s claim is barred under

A: holding that the oneyear period begins to run when the mandate of the court of appeals issues
B: holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach
C: holding that the 120day time period begins to run after the agencys initial interview of the applicant
D: holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court
B.