Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
would still be John’s though ‘apples and oranges’ are listed before pears. The comma after ‘apples and oranges’ is not a period, it’s a comma. They are still ‘John’s ... pears.’ It is illogical to say otherwise. Also, the apples, oranges, kiwis, and pears are still John’s though ‘fruit’ appears in the middle of the statement and is a term that overlaps the others. Appellants’ Reply Brief at 7. To the extent that the Haires argue that “the entire list of categories is controlled by the possessive ‘its,’ ” we observe that the list includes “riders,” “motorcycle owners,” “mechanics and pit crew, and owners and lessees of premises,” Appellants’ Appendix at 47, and the plain language of the Release does not reveal whether these entities are or are not owned by or separate from Haspin 1267 . The Haires also argue that Donald was not in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties
B. holding that if summary judgment is reversed and remanded parties are not limited to theories asserted in original summary judgment at later trial on merits
C. holding that contradictory references clouded the intent of the document parol evidence may be utilized to determine the parties true intentions respecting the documents application and that the entry of summary judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a factual determination
D. holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue
E. holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.