Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
we need not reach the issue whether the challenged statement constitutes an allegation or á factual statement. As the Eskildsens point out, and as our review of the record demonstrates, Inline did not move to strike the affidavit at issue. In Ex parte Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 92 So.3d 771 (Ala.2012), our supreme court reiterated the requirements for successfully challenging the admissibility of an affidavit submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment, writing: “Cases decided after Perry [v. Mobile County, 533 So.2d 602 (Ala.1988),] have not always been clear in holding that a party challenging the admissibility of an affidavit must object to the affidavit and move to strike it. See Ex parte Diversey Corp., 742 So.2d 1250, 1253-54 (Ala.1999) ; Elizabeth Homes, L.L.C. v. Cato, 968 So.2d 1,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court can consider inadmissible evidence if the party against whom it is offered does not object to the evidence by moving to strike it
B. holding it is well settled that an error in admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered
C. holding that the trial courts damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based upon inadmissible evidence
D. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction
E. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.