Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
restores the contract to its original condition and places the parties in the same legal position as before the repudiation. See Restatement, supra, § 256 cmt. a (if a repudiation is nullified it eliminates all consequences of a repudiation). Thus, a retraction reinstates the obligations of the other party, including any conditions precedent, so that the performance of such conditions is once again necessary before the repudiating party can be charged with breach. Corbin, supra, § 980, at 933. However, a retraction, to be effective, must be clear and unequivocal; it may not impose new conditions not in accord with the original contract. See Pichignau v. City of Paris, 264 Cal.App.2d 138, 70 Cal.Rptr. 147, 149 (1968); Vahabzadeh v.. Mooney, 241 Va. 47, 399 S.E.2d 803, 805 (1991) . {20} Based on the evidence presented at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous
B. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal
C. holding that to be effective a retraction must meet the same standard as repudiation and therefore must be clear definite absolute and unequivocal in evincing the repudiators intention to honor his obligations under the contract
D. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence
E. holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.