Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and warranties, such as its technical requirements pertaining to internal management and accounting, could only occur intentionally. In the absence of contextual evidence of the meaning of the term “wilful” as used in the Agreement, it is too early in this litigation for a finding as to its meaning. Extrinsic evidence — that is, “evidence relating to a contract but not appearing on the face of the contract because it comes from other sources, such as statements between the parties or the circumstances surrounding the agreement” — is admissible to explain the meaning of an ambiguous term. Simon Prop. Group, L.P. v. Michigan Sporting Goods Distrib., Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1058, 1071 & n. 10 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); see also Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528, 535 (Ind.2006) . Discovery in this case has not yet been had.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous
B. holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether a contract is ambiguous
C. holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous
D. holding that extrinsic evidence is permissible to interpret an ambiguous contract
E. holding that where an instrument is ambiguous all relevant extrinsic evidence may properly be considered in resolving the ambiguity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.