Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1 Farnsworth, supra note 19, § 4.28, at 585. 27 Deminsky, 259 Wis. 2d 587, ¶ 27; Discount Fabric House, 117 Wis. 2d at 602 (quoting Johnson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 415 F. Supp. 264, 268 (E.D. Mich. 1976)); Leasefirst, 168 Wis. 2d at 89-90. As Professor Arthur Allen Leff described it, procedural unconscionability refers to "bargaining naughtiness." Arthur Allen Leff, Unconscionability and the Code — The Emperor's New Clause, 115 U. Pa. L. Rev. 485, 487 (1967) (quoted in 1 White & Summers, supra note 20, § 4-3, at 213). 28 Discount Fabric House, 117 Wis. 2d at 602 (quoting Johnson, 415 F. Supp. at 268); see also Wis. Stat. § 425.107 (unconscionability factors under the Wisconsin Consumer Act). 29 See Pietroske, Inc. v. Globalcom, Inc., 2004 WI App 142, ¶ 6, 275 Wis. 2d 444, 685 N.W.2d 884 . See also 8 Lord, supra note 15, § 18.8, at 48
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract
B. holding in the context of a forumselection provision that the balancing of procedural and substantive unconscionability requires courts to consider each questionable forumselection clause on a casebycase basis and precludes the development of a brightline rule
C. holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements
D. holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim
E. holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.