Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rebate method on voluntary prepayment of the contract. The Court of Appeals based this conclusion on the statement in Milhollin that “... acceleration rebate practices need be disclosed only when they diverge from other prepayment rebate practices...” Ford Motor Co. v. Milhollin, supra, 444 U. S. at p. 569. In Milhollin, the question for decision was whether under TILA, as well as Regulation Z, the existence of an acceleration clause must be disclosed on the face of a credit agreement. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, because of conflicting resolutions of this question by various federal circuit courts of appeal. See Griffith v. Superior Ford, 577 F2d 455 (8th Cir. 1978); United States ex rel. Hornell v. One 1976 Chevrolet, 585 F2d 978 (10th Cir. 1978) ; Johnson v. McCrackin-Sturman Ford, Inc., 527
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the existence of probable cause vitiated the need for an inquiry into an underlying motive for the arrest
B. holding that the existence of an acceleration clause need never be disclosed
C. recognizing the existence of the special relationship
D. holding that the acceleration clause was not cognizable as a large and unjustified payment
E. holding that establishment clause claim need not be predicated on coercion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.