Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Agreement. For example, assume that Aviall and Cooper entered into a contract that provided only that Aviall would assume liability for Cooper’s pre-closing debt to Jones Company. If Jones Company made demand on Cooper, who in turn made demand on Aviall, who then refused to pay the debt, Cooper could presumably bring a breach of contract claim against Aviall for failing to honor its contractual obligation to assume liability for the Jones Company debt. But this right would be based on a contract that reflected that this was the parties’ objective intent. In the present case, however, the Agreement has other relevant provisions, and the contract must be interpreted as a whole. See, e.g., Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. FDIC, 16 F.Supp.2d 698, 707 (N.D.Tex.1998) (Fitzwater, J.) (Texas law) . Section 1.03 and other provisions that impose
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court must examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless
B. holding that the trier of fact must be allowed to consider and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence
C. holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions
D. recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions
E. holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.