Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953). Under Lauritzen, according to Hawkspere, United States law governs. B. “[W]here the parties specify in their contractual agreement which law will apply, admiralty courts will generally give effect to that choice.” Chan v. Soc’y Expeditions, Inc., 123 F.3d 1287, 1297 (9th Cir.1997) (enforcing choice-of-law clause in marine passenger ticket). “In the absence of a contractual choice-of-law clause, federal courts sitting in admiralty apply federal maritime choice-of-law principles derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau-ritzen ... and its progeny.” Id.; see Sundance Cruises Corp. v. The Am. Bureau of Shipping, 7 F.3d 1077, 1081 (2d Cir.1993); see also The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) ; Richards v. Lloyd’s of London, 135 F.3d 1289,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts should enforce a choiceoflaw clause when it is part of a freely negotiated private international agreement
B. holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue
C. holding that the union owes its representatives a duty to enforce the terms of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement
D. holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract
E. holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.