Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Allocco v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., No. 02 Civ. 1029(LMM), 2002 WL 1402084, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 27, 2002) (internal citations omitted) (citing Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86, 91 (1983)). New York law “implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, pursuant to which neither party to a contract shall do anything which has the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.” Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400, 407 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, there can be no covenant of good faith implied unless there is a contract between two parties upon which to imply it. See Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 198-99  (internal quotations omitted). Here, the only
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract
B. recognizing the basic principle of contract law that the obligation of good faith is an implied condition in every contract
C. holding that the fine print terms at the bottom of an invoice imposing attorney fees were not terms upon which the parties agreed and therefore did not become part of the contract
D. recognizing implied covenant to market gas
E. holding that the implied covenant can only impose an obligation consistent with other mutually agreed upon terms in the contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.