Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the policy against restraints on alienation, even where the mortgage explicitly states there is no right to prepay the note, if the mortgagor can provide the mortgagee with the benefit of his bargain under the terms of the note, he will be allowed to have a release of his land following the substitution of security or other arrangement. Id. at 66 n. 1, 468 A.2d at 461 n. 1. In arguing that the restraint is unreasonable, Warrington relies in part on California case law that holds due-on-sale and due-on-encumbrance clauses, though not per se unreasonable, to be unreasonable where enforcement is unnecessary to protect the lender’s security interest. E.g., Tucker v. Lassen Savings and Loan Ass’n, 12 Cal.3d 629, 635-36, 526 P.2d 1169, 1173-74, 116 Cal.Rptr. 633, 637-38 (1974) ; La Sala v. American Savings & Loan Ass’n, 5
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding as an unreasonable restraint on alienation the automatic enforcement of a dueonsale clause where the borrower has entered into an installment land contract to sell the secured property
B. holding that a contract to sell real property was unenforceable because it did not contain a sufficient description of land subject to contract
C. holding that a suit for one installment payment does not preclude suit for a later installment
D. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due
E. holding the enforcement of a dueonencumbrance clause to be an unreasonable restraint on alienation unless the borrowers conduct endangers the lenders security
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.