Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Pro/E software in this case constituted a sale of goods, the first issue to be resolved is whether Massachusetts law allows parties to a contract for a sale of goods to contractually limit damages, and provide limitations periods on initiation of contractual claims. Under Massachusetts law, a contractual one year limitations period does not violate Massachusetts public policy, and is expressly permitted under the Massachusetts UCC. Mass. Gen. Law ch. 106 § 2-725; Hays v. Mobil Oil Corp., 930 F.2d 96, 100 (1st Cir.1991). Similarly, the Massachusetts UCC allows parties to a contract for the sale of goods to limit damages as long as such limitation would not be unconscionable. Mass. Gen. Law ch. 106 § 2-719. See also, PC COM, Inc. v. Proteon, Inc., 946 F.Supp. 1125, 1138 (S.D.N.Y.1996) . Similarly, Massachusetts law permits parties
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding fee splitting provision of arbitration agreement unconscionable under california law
B. holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision
C. holding that under massachusetts law contractual provision in computer goods sales contract limiting consequential damages was not unconscionable
D. holding arbitration provision of automobile installment sales agreement unconscionable
E. holding the class action waiver provision of cellular telephone service contract unconscionable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.