Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
basic underlying relationship. Like a switch from a dealership to a “tight agency” or a restructuring that leaves only the premium business in the dealer’s hands, a termination is surely a “change” in the parties’ relationship. Section 135.03 itself does not distinguish, for purposes of the good cause requirement, among actions that “terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially change” the dealership agreement. Thus, if Rexnord was entitled to argue that its own economic circumstances constituted good cause for its attempted change and its ultimate termination of Ziegler’s dealership, we see no logical reason why Zenith cannot attempt to do the same with respect to Morley-Murphy’s dealership. Cf. East Bay Running Store, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., 890 F.2d 996, 1000 n. 6 (7th Cir.1989) . The Wisconsin Supreme Court was careful to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding unconstitutional ordinance that gave executive director excessive discretion in deciding whether the grant of a permit would be detrimental to the public
B. holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion
C. recognizing but not deciding that contrary to what remus held ziegler seemed to contemplate a grant orbased inquiry
D. holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation
E. recognizing but not deciding argument that failure to verify complaint under supplemental rules may deprive the court of jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.