Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
159, 842 P.2d 975, 978 (1992), affd in part, rev’d in part, 124 Wash.2d 158, 876 P.2d 435 (1994). The Restatement defines the doctrine of promissory estoppel as follows: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1979). The doctrine of promissory estoppel is used to enforce a promise where there is a lack of consideration and as such does not apply to the facts of this ease. See Hatfield v. Columbia Federal Savings Bank, 57 Wash.App..876, 790 P.2d 1258, 1263 (1990) . In this case there is an express contract and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration
B. holding that the absence of a binding agreement does not defeat a promissory estoppel claim
C. holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract
D. holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel
E. holding that a promissory estoppel claim failed where the plaintiff provided no evidence that the employer defendant did not follow the employment manuals requirements
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.