Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
even though the store benefitted from the advertising, the court found this did not rise to the level of consideration. Id. In State v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., the Court of Civil Appeals contrasted Brice with Cole and found no consideration where a filling station paid for bingo cards but gave them away free to any and all persons who came to their stations to request them, and a local TV station broadcast games in which bingo cards were used with winners being awarded cash prizes. 386 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1964). Some jurisdictions outside of the State of Texas have held that requiring a person to actually go to the location of the sweepstakes sponsor in order to participate constitutes consideration. See Lucky Calendar Co. v. Cohen, 19 N.J. 399, 117 A.2d 487, 496 (1955); Knox Indus. Corp. v. State ex rel. Scanland,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a store vicariously liable for wrongful death when its employee shot and killed a customer
B. holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer
C. holding that consideration exists where a customer is burdened by having to visit the store where the coupons are being offered
D. holding that negligence of a store customer in failing to perceive a strip of black substance was a question for the jury
E. holding that grocery store did not have duty to foresee and protect customer from rowdy children
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.