Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
when considering a motion for summary judgment, if the responding party brings forth any evidence that supports a reasonable construction of the intent of the testatrix which differs from that urged by the movant, summary judgment is inappropriate. Here, the term “my real property ... in ... Prue Road” could reasonably refer to the land alone. But, in light of the extrinsic evidence offered, it is just as reasonable to construe this phrase as that bundle of assets that comprised a long-time, ongoing family business investment. The extrinsic evidence offered here did not contradict any language in the will, nor did it refer to something outside of or independent of the words used in the will. See Najvar v. Vasek, 564 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) . Rather, the affidavits and historical
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous
B. holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous
C. holding that if statutory language is plain and unambiguous this court will not look beyond the same to divine legislative intent
D. holding extrinsic evidence contradicting language in will inadmissible when will is unambiguous
E. holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.