Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the parties, the plain, clear meaning of its terms must be given effect, and ‘the parties must be legally presumed to have intended what is plainly and clearly set out.’ Camp v. Milam, 201 Ala. 12, 16, 277 So.2d 95, 98 (1973). Accord, Financial Investment Corp. v. Tukabatchee Area Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America, 353 So.2d 1389 (Ala.1977). The court cannot look beyond the ‘four corners of the grant to construe its terms unless the court determines that the language or its meaning is ambiguous.’ Camp, supra.’ ” Kerrigan v. Sherrer, 535 So.2d 74, 75 (Ala.1988). We conclude that the document creating the easement in this case unambiguously created a nonexclusive easement and that the extrinsic evidence regarding the intent of the grantor and the grantee was not admissible. Id. at 75 . Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court erred in considering the intent of the parties when the document creating the easement was unambiguous
B. holding that at summary judgment hearing trial court erred by considering theory not raised in the pleadings
C. holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
D. holding that the governor erred in considering evidence that was not before the board
E. holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.