Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
agencies have some procedural limitations on their discretion, it does not follow that substantively they have no discretion. Such a conclusion is overly formalistic and ignores the on-the-ground reality that DSHS was the party that had control over the formula for authorized service hours. ¶26 As described above, when a party has discretion over a future contract term, it has an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in setting and performing that contractual term. Here, the contract provided that service providers wo the duty of good faith did not apply to a landlord’s refusal to consent to a lease agreement when the contract gave the landlord the unconditional right to do so); Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Westwood Lumber, Inc., 65 Wn. App. 811, 820, 822-23, 829 P.2d 1152 (1992) . DSHS relies heavily on Monotype Corp. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that course of dealing may render uncertain terms sufficiently definite
B. recognizing that course of dealing may establish limitation of damages as part of parties bargain in fact but finding record was devoid of any evidence to establish a prior course of dealing between parties
C. holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty
D. holding that the trial court erred by imposing a duty of good faith on seattlefirst in relation to a course of dealing when that course of dealing conflicted with the express terms of the contract
E. holding that duty of good faith and fair dealing did not extend to thirdparty claimant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.