Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
By implicating the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, Protégé asks this court to look beyond the four corners of the 2007 Employment Agreement to the terms of the 2004 Employment Agreement and to conclude that the exclusion of a provision prohibiting Protégé from reducing Colameta’s salary or changing his job duties gave Protégé the authority to do both. The 2007 Employment Agreement, however, is unambiguous; indeed, neither Protégé nor the defendants argue to the contrary. The court therefore cannot use the 2004 Employment Agreement to assist in the interpretation of the 2007 Employment Agreement, whether through application of the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius or otherwise. See McAdams v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 287, 300 (1st Cir. 2004) . B. Protégé’s Breach of the 2007 Employment
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous
B. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation
C. holding that principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius has no place in interpretation of unambiguous contract
D. holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law
E. holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.