Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
years leading up to the lawsuit, and that such contacts can be considered collectively). 2. Forum Selection Clause Under Florida law — which is the minority view — “a contractual choice of forum clause designating Florida as the forum cannot serve as the sole basis for asserting in personam jurisdiction over an objecting, non-resident defendant.” McRae v. J.D./M.D., Inc., 511 So.2d 540, 544 (Fla.1987) (emphasis added). Such a clause may, however, be considered as a factor that weighs in favor of exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where other grounds exist to exercise such jurisdiction. See Armaly v. Practice Mgmt. Assocs., 533 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); see also Desai Patel Sharma, Ltd v. Don Bell Indus., Inc., 729 So.2d 453, 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) . Here, in addition to the contacts described
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant
B. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state
C. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction
D. holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor
E. holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.