Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rendition of the services by the other party to the contract, constitutes a breach of contract, importing damages”) (citations omitted). Moreover, a determination as to whether activities were undertaken in good faith depends partly on an analysis of motive and should generally be made by a trier of fact. See, e.g., Carvel Corp. v. Diversified Mgmt. Group, Inc., 930 F.2d 228, 230 (2d Cir.1991) (party to contract claiming that other party to contract “unjustifiably frustrated” its efforts to perform under agreement in breach of implied duty of good faith “is entitled to have the jury instructed as to his claims and theories of law if supported by the evidence and brought to the attention of the court”); Schwartz v. Marien, 37 N.Y.2d 487, 493, 373 N.Y.S.2d 122, 128, 335 N.E.2d 334 (1975) . Here, defendants refused to certify a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims
B. holding that it is appropriate for determinations as to whether the activities of defendants were undertaken in good faith for a legitimate corporate purpose to go to the jury
C. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law
D. holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith
E. holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.