Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
discussed, Plaintiffs theory of fraud does not hold up under Michigan law. More detailed descriptions of the time and place the alleged statements were made would not cure its defects. C. Promissory Estoppel Plaintiffs third claim invokes the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Under Michigan law, courts will enforce a clear and definite promise under this doctrine if the promisee or a third party reasonably relied on the promise and injustice can only be avoided by its enforcement. State Bank of Standish v. Curry, 442 Mich. 76, 500 N.W.2d 104, 107 (1993) (“Curry”) (citing the Restatement Second of Contracts, § 90.) As the Michigan Supreme Court explained, “the sine qua non of the theory of promissory estoppel is that the promise be clear and definite.” Id. at 108; see.id. at 109-10 . The court additionally emphasized that “the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel
B. holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met
C. holding that evidence of the material terms of a promised loan was required to meet the clear and definite standard for promissory estoppel
D. holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract
E. holding that the absence of a binding agreement does not defeat a promissory estoppel claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.