Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a lien to Lot 125. Applicable principles of contract interpretation show that the trial court did not err in finding that a valid contract existed between DNS and the Family Trust for the construction of a seawall on Lot 125. Accordingly, the court was correct in ruling that DNS was precluded from recovering against the Family Trust under the theory of quantum meruit, because a valid contract existed between them, and DNS failed to bring a breach of contract clainl against the Family Trust. While DNS argues that if the Family Trust was a party to the seawall contract, then a breach of contract claim against the Trust was tried by acquiescence, there is no evidence to support this argument. See generally Alfred S. Austin Constr. Co., Inc. v. Narnia, 220 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) . Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that this court will not consider a theory or issue that was not pleaded or raised in the trial court
B. holding that the court neither weighs the evidence nor substitutes its own judgment for that of the agency
C. holding that where judgment was not entered the appeals period neither triggered nor expired
D. holding that court will not take judicial notice of foreign law that is neither pleaded nor proven
E. holding that trial court erroneously entered judgment pursuant to a theory which was neither pleaded nor tried by acquiescence or otherwise
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.