With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State v. Mollman, 2003 S.D. 150, ¶ 12, 674 N.W.2d 22, 27 (prohibiting the party with the burden of proof from having another “bite at the apple” because he was given ample opportunity to prove his claim but failed to do so); see also Stugelmayer v. Ulmer, 260 N.W.2d 236, 240 (S.D.1977) (denying the plaintiff/appellant's request for this Court to remand the case to the circuit court for a further determination of damages where the plaintiff initially failed to show any damages and should not be given another opportunity to do so). Although both dissents criticize the absence of evidence and findings on remand as to the value of the equipment at the time of the breach, such evidence was deemed not to be decisive in Brownlee III. See Brownlee III, 2010 S.D. 13, ¶ 25, 778 N.W.2d at 830 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the circuit court was clearly confined

A: recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach
B: holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
C: holding that there must be sufficient competent evidence from which the trier of fact could estimate the amount of damages with a reasonable degree of certainty
D: holding the circuit court mistakenly concluded weekley failed to prove her damages with reasonable certainty because she presented no evidence of the equipments value at the time of wagners breach
D.