Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
definition that is applicable in all settings' Thus, 'the meaning of [cohabitation] depends upon the con text in which it is used.' '' Keene v. Bonser, 2005 UT App 37, ¶ 7, 107 P.3d 693 (second alteration in original) (quoting Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669, 671 (Utah 1985)). The jury instructions employed the definition of eohabitant found in the Cohabitant Abuse Act, informing the jury that Watkins was a cohbabitant of Father if either he was "related by blood or marriage to [Father]" or he "resides or has resided in the same residence as [Father]." See Utah Code Aun. § 78B-7-102(2) (2008). However, that definition is limited to the provisions of the Cohabitant Abuse Act and is not necessarily applicable in other contexts. See Hill v. Hill, 968 P.2d 866, 868-69 (Utah Ct.App.1998) . \ 13 The definition found in the Cohabitant
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that threat as used in the coercion definition as that definition is incorporated into section 3605s witnesstampering prohibition was not unconstitutionally vague because nature of threat was informed by the harms enumerated in the definition in that case hatred contempt and ridicule
B. holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract
C. holding that the cohabitant abuse acts definition of cohabitant did not abrogate the definition of cohabitant developed by case law in the context of alimony termination
D. holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts
E. holding that the definition of supplier under the ocspa is substantially broader than the definition of debt collector under the fdcpa
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.