Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
135 N.M. 192, 86 P.3d 617, 619 (Ct.App.2004). A contract is ambiguous if it is “reasonably and fairly susceptible of different constructions.” Id. "[I]n determining whether a term or expression to which the parties have agreed is unclear, a court may hear evidence of the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract and of any relevant usage of trade, course of dealing, and course of performance.” C.R. Anthony Co. v. Loretto Mall Partners, 112 N.M. 504, 817 P.2d 238, 242-43 (1991) (footnote omitted). "Further, the language of the entire agreement should be construed together.” Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., 127 N.M. 1, 976 P.2d 1, 12 (1999). 12 . See, e.g., Atl. Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1152-53 (10th Cir.2000) . But see Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co., 29 P.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims
B. recognizing that analysis of whether certain expenses qualify as deducti ing royalty contracts
C. holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid
D. holding that federal express costs telephone expenses and postage expenses did not qualify as taxable costs
E. holding that the enactment of firrea breached certain government contracts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.