Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Thus, Blair extended Bassler beyond its reach. Neither Blair nor Bassler offers authority for the proposition that the Borrowers need a private right of action under Section 7(d) or Section 29(b) in order to assert an affirmative defense that the Notes are void and unenforceable because they violate Section 7(d) and Regulations G and U. No private right of action under a statute is necessary to assert a violation of that statute as an affirmative defense. See, e.g., Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 86, 102 S.Ct. 851, 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982) (allowing defense under § 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act where defendant had no private right of action to enforce the statute); United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 566, 81 S.Ct. 294, 5 L.Ed.2d 268 (1961) ; E. Bement & Sons v. Nat’l Harrow Co., 186
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
B. holding conflict of interest on the part of a government official who participated in contract negotiations in violation of federal law rendered contract unenforceable
C. holding an administrative rule referred to in the contract became part of the contract under the doctrine of incorporation
D. holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable
E. recognizing an exception to the conflict rule where the conflict arose after the award of the contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.