Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ellis, 126 S.W.3d 324, 330 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). Therefore, our determination is limited to whether MCD is bound by the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary or under a theory of estoppel. Third-Party Beneficiary Courts treat arbitration agreements as other contracts in applying the legal rules to interpret them. In re Olshan Foundation Repair, Co. LLC, 328 S.W.3d 883, 889 (Tex.2010). “The goal is to discern the true intentions of the parties, as the FAA’s primary purpose is to ensure private agreements to arbitrate and enforce according to their terms, no more, no less.” Id. A third-party beneficiary to a contract can compel or be compelled to arbitrate under an arbitration provision in a contract. See In re NEXT Fin. Group Inc., 271 S.W.3d 263, 267 (Tex.2008) . Generally, however, “there is a presumption
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid
B. holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship
C. holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply
D. recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary
E. holding employer thirdparty beneficiary could compel arbitration
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.