Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as to how long it will last, a reasonable duration may be implied by the nature of the contract or from the surrounding circumstances. The law does not say specifically how long would be reasonable. That’s for you to decide. When a contract fixes no time for its duration, and none can be implied by the nature of the contract and surrounding circumstances, the contract may be terminated at the will of either party. (Appellant’s App. at 495.) Specifically, Pot-latch argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could infer a reasonable duration to the oral contract. Potlatch cites several cases holding that a contract of indefinite duration may be terminated at will. See, e.g., Union Nat’l Bank v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th Cir.1988) ; Gary Braswell & Assoc. v. Piedmont Indust.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that traditional commercial contract provided for termination at will under arkansas law
B. holding requirement in contract to provide notice for termination but not limiting reasons for termination constitutes atwill employment relationship
C. holding in a successor liability case that questions of traditional tort law unrelated to the contract were properly governed under forum law
D. holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated 
E. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.