Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
criminal sense. The district court agreed and granted the motion, reasoning that “the website was obviously directed at a younger audience and contained loose, figurative, slang language such that a reasonable person would not believe ESPN was actually accusing Plaintiffs of being involved in criminal activity.” The Knievels moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), but the motion was denied. The Knievels then noticed this appeal. They contend that the Montana Constitu tion guarantees them a jury trial on their defamation claim, and that the district court erred as a matter of law when it dismissed the action. II. We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9t 38 P.2d 580, 586 (1943) , overruled on other grounds by State v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous
B. holding that notwithstanding the ambiguous language of the montana constitution it is for the court and not the jury to pass upon demurrers to the complaint
C. holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous
D. holding that rules of contract construction are to be applied where the language used is ambiguous
E. recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.