Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and dissenting). However, Tenn. R.App. P. 13(b) recognizes that exceptions can be made in appropriate circumstances. A challenge to the validity of a contract based on public policy grounds is one such exception. One authoritative text has recognized that the issue of whether a contract is contrary to public policy is an issue that trial and appellate courts may raise sua sponte. 15 Grace McLane Giesel, Corbin on Contracts § 79.6, at 27, 32 (rev. ed. 2003) (“Corbin on Contracts ”); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts, ch. 8, topic 1, at 5 (1981). We have also previously reached the same conclusion. Reaves Lumber Co. v. Cain-Hurley Lumber Co., 152 Tenn. 339, 344, 279 S.W. 257, 258 (1926) (quoting Cary-Lombard Lumber Co. v. Thomas, 92 Tenn. 587, 594, 22 S.W. 743, 745 (1893) ). We take no issue with the intermediate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts are not bound to decide any particular jurisdictional question before any other
B. holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
C. holding that we will not grant relief unless the indictment is so obviously defective as not to charge the offense alleged by any reasonable construction
D. recognizing that courts will not add terms to a contract about which the contract is silent
E. holding that the courts will deny any relief upon any illegal contract  whenever the illegality is made to appear
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.