Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(Tex. 1981); Yzaguirre v. KCS Res., 47 S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000), aff'd, 53 S.W.3d 368 (Tex.2001). Appellants were bound by the division orders because they accepted royalty payments based on the unit percentages under the division orders, and they did not revoke the division orders: See Tex. Nat. Res.Code Ann. § 91.402(g); Cabot Corp., 754 S.W.2d at 107-08. Section 91.402(h) of the Texas Natural Resources Code does not render obsolete the “excuse” defense or the longstanding rule that division orders are binding until revoked. Cabot Corp., 754 S.W.2d at 107 — 08; see Sun Oil Co., 626 S.W.2d at 734 (estoppel based on division orders is valid and binding until division order is revoked); Neel v. Killarn Oil Co., 88 S.W.3d 334, 341-42 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) , disapproved on other grounds, Hausser v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitrate where they had consistently resisted arbitration and only when an unfavorable judgment was entered against them at trial did they seek to compel arbitration
B. recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury
C. holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred
D. holding that if claimants had signed new division orders they would have waived their rights to a larger royalty payment
E. holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might affect their deliberations but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.