Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
equated to the making of a new contract. Rather, we give effect to the terms of the agreements themselves and conclude that they were executed once, in 1984, and that the original agreements continued to be in force until John Deere attempted to exercise its rights under the 120 notice provision in 2007. See 11 Williston on Cont of one party, John Deere, to terminate the contract without cause on 120 days notice. Applying the Act would effectively extend the dealer agreements indefinitely unless John Deere can meet the terms of the Act’s good cause provision. We conclude that this would substantially impair the contractual relationship between John Deere and Reliable Tractor and would violate the Contracts Clause. See Morgan v. Kemper Ins. Cos., 754 F.2d 145, 147-48 (4th Cir.1985) ; Garris v. Hanover Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 1001,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the employer was not the insurers agent
B. holding retroactive application
C. holding that a retroactive application of a statute impairing an insurers contractual right to terminate an agent without cause violated the contract clause
D. recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary
E. holding no retroactive application
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.