Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which Hinton and Wachovia agreed states that if Hinton breaches, Wachovia is entitled to foreclose on the property. On this basis, Wachovia contends that it was entitled to reject Hinton’s October payment and initiate foreclosure proceedings on the home. Hinton’s claim that Wachovia breached the May DFA by failing to state a sum certain for the “regular payment” amount is without merit. Hinton cites no authority for this proposition, and we have found none. An ambiguous term in the contract does not amount to a breach by the drafter. Rather, a significant disagreement over the meaning of a contract term could vitiate mutual assent, and thus no contract would ever have been formed. See Higgins v. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union, Local #3-677, 811 S.W.2d 875, 879-81 (Tenn.1991) ; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 20(1)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties
B. holding judicial reformation of contract is an appropriate remedy when the contract was the product of a mutual mistake
C. 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
D. holding a deviation from the terms of a contract constitutes an impairment of contract
E. holding that both the lack of mutual assent and the indefiniteness of contract terms negate the existence of a contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.