Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
293 S.C. 8, 13-14, 358 S.E.2d 173, 176 (Ct.App.1987). Because both Settlemeyer and McCluney testified no written document existed governing conveyance of the properties between the parties, we only address the issue of part performance. At trial, McCluney denied an oral agreement existed between the parties in which she was to convey the properties to Settlemeyer. Furthermore, although Settlemeyer testified he thought such an agreement existed between the parties, he stated the parties did not orally express this agreement. Rather, he testified he trusted McCluney to act as he desired. Based on our review of the evidence contained in the record, we hold Settlemeyer did not present clear evidence of an oral agreement between the parties. See Gibson, 293 S.C. at 13, 358 S.E.2d at 176 . Without the existence of an oral agreement,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds
B. holding that if part performance is relied upon to remove the oral agreement from the operation of the statute of frauds clear and convincing proof of performance in pursuance of the alleged agreement must be adduced by the party seeking to enforce it
C. holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract
D. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract
E. holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.