Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prior to the granting of a discharge, the reaffirmation agreement satisfies the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1). This is true even if the reaffirmation agreement is not memorial ized in a signed writing until after a discharge is granted. See In re Merritt, 366 B.R. 687 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.2007) (finding that a reaffirmation agreement is made “when all parties to the contract have objectively expressed their intention to make the bargain expressed by the contract,” and enforcing a reaffirmation agreement which was signed by the creditor post-discharge where the communications between the debtor and the creditor and the acts and circumstances surrounding those communications establish that a meeting of the minds occurred pre-discharge); In re LeBeau, 247 B.R. 537 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2000) . In this case, a “meeting of the minds”
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that agreement had been reached where the plaintiff had proposed terms for providing his services to the defendant and the parties then entered into a business relationship  despite defendants claim it never agreed to the plaintiffs proposed salary terms for that relationship
B. holding that a settlement agreement in which the parties failed to agree upon the terms of a release was unenforceable
C. holding that reopening a closed case to file a reaffirmation agreement is not permitted by the bankruptcy code
D. holding that a reaffirmation agreement is enforceable as having been made predischarge where the parties agree to the terms of the proposed reaffirmation predischarge but the debtors do not sign a writing embodying the terms of their agreement until after entry of the discharge order
E. recognizing an agreement to agree is enforceable if its terms are reasonably definite and certain
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.