Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
where the underlying claim is for breach of a contract); W.D. Haden Co. v. Dodgen, 158 Tex. 74, 81-82, 308 S.W.2d 838, 842 (1958) (drawing no distinction between the individual defendant and the agency defendant in holding that a suit seeking “enforcement of contract rights” is barred by immunity in the absence of any “statutory provision governing or limiting the manner of sale”). The underlying nature of Multi-County’s contract claim is not altered simply because it seeks to prevent the governmental entities from continuing the alleged breach of contract in the future rather than seeking monetary damages for a breach that may have occurred in the past. In sum, this is a contract action to which governmental immunity applies. See, e.g., Dodgen, 158 Tex. at 79, 308 S.W.2d at 840-41 ; Anderson v. City of McKinney, 236 S.W.3d 481,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that immunity applies to suit for declaratory judgment that plaintiff was entitled to continue paying for mudshell at the price specified in its contract with the government
B. holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract
C. 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
D. holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy
E. holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.