Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
defendants ordering more than 70 Towncars, or more than $2 million in automobiles, from plaintiffs dealership in Kansas. Defendants have been doing business with plaintiff in the same manner for at least ten years. According to Danny Zeck’s affidavit, defendants would place orders for Towncars with plaintiff in Kansas by mail and by facsimile. The court does not find persuasive defendants’ argument that jurisdiction cannot exist because plaintiff initiated contact with defendants in California and defendants never entered Kansas. It is clear that when a party chooses to enter into a contract with a Kansas corporation, the subsequent contacts cannot be said to be “random, fortuitous, or attenuated.” Marketing Group, Inc. v. Success Dev. Int’l, Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1244 (D.Kan.1999); World Paper Res., Inc. v. Buckeye Cellulose
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding kansas comparative fault statute applied where the accident occurred in kansas and the only missouri contact with the accident was the fact that one of the parties  resided in missouri distinguishing hicks based on the lack significant contacts with missouri
B. holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it responded to the plaintiffs offer to contract despite the fact that a contract was never formally signed
C. holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it chose to enter into a contract with the plaintiff that was to be performed at least in part in kansas and then the defendant continued to be in contact with the plaintiff regarding the contract
D. holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur
E. holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.