Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it is executed for the uses and purposes it expresses.” Hawaiian Trust & Inv. Co. v. Barton, 16 Haw. 294, 300 (1904) It has also been held that even without recordation, “ ‘[a] deed apparently valid upon its face carries with it a presumption of validity’” as between the parties to a deed. Chun Chew Pang v. Chun Chew Kee, 49 Haw. 62, 71, 412 P.2d 326, 332 (1966) (quoting McElroy v. Calhoun, 177 Okla. 38, 57 P.2d 827, 828 (1936)). “Even if the deed had no acknowledgment, or its equivalent, at all, it would still be good between the parties. As between the parties acknowledgment of a deed is not necessary.” Meheula v. Pioneer Mill Co., 17 Haw. 56, 58 (1905) (citing Laanui v. Puohu, 2 Haw. 161 (1859)). See also In re Nelson, 26 Haw. 809, 820 (1923); Aiau v. Kupau, 4 Haw. 384, 385 (1881) . Id. at 281-82, 909 P.2d at 609-10 (some
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that agency is bound by its regulations
B. holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error
C. holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner
D. holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
E. holding that recording is notice to one bound to search the record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.