Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and is not “connected with” or “directly related to” appellants’ sales to 3M and Worum. Lorix contends, however, that there must only be a “reasonably close connection” between the cause of action and the defendant’s contacts with the forum state to support a finding of specific jurisdiction. Lorix argues that the sale of rubber-processing chemicals to Minnesota corporations to manufacture products other than tires is sufficiently related to a suit alleging that downstream indirect purchasers paid a supracompetitive price for tires that contained those same rubber-processing chemicals. But for specific jurisdiction to exist, a plaintiff must show a more direct connection between his alleged injury and the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. See Marshall, 610 N.W.2d at 676 ; Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., 555 N.W.2d 301,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding city waives immunity by entering into contract
B. holding that a plaintiff may proceed with a claim against the state for breach of contract only where the state implicitly waives its sovereign immunity by expressly entering into a valid contract through an agent of the state expressly authorized by law to enter into such contract
C. holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract
D. holding that no acts by the outofstate defendant  would place her within the florida longarm statute in entering into a contract with a florida resident for an office to be run in mississippi
E. holding entering into a contract with a minnesota resident can justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction but only where the dispute involves the contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.