Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“fully and finally affirmed,” it remained possible that attorneys’ fees could be reduced or the order reversed altogether. R. 97-1, Pg. ID 1488-89, 1508 (providing that “the Settling Parties enter[ed] into this Agreement on a conditional basis,” and that if the order was reversed on appeal the agreement “shall be deemed null and void”). And while it would have been good business practice to set the money aside, the contempt power is not meant to force businesses into good business practices. Nor is it meant to force parties to comply with contracts, where a breach of contract action would be more appropriate. Rather, the contempt power is reserved for parties that knowingly violate clear and specific commands of the court. See, e.g., Downey v. Clauder, 30 F.3d 681, 686 (6th Cir. 1994) ; NLRB v. Deena Artware, Inc., 261 F.2d 503,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an order that did not specify a date or command the contemnor to act immediately was not definite and specific
B. holding that letter stating an annual salary did not embody the terms of any agreement between the parties as it did not specify a beginning date duration of time and did not require acceptance signatures
C. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act
D. holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
E. holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.