Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor: (i) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (ii) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. 3 . This narrow interpretation of implied consent is not exclusive to the First Circuit; but rather has been established in several circuits. See e.g., Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Martin, 954 F.2d 353, 358 (6th Cir.1992) ; Wesco Mfg., Inc. v. Tropical Attractions of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party
B. holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds
C. holding that evidence which is relevant to a pleaded issue as well as an unpleaded issue does not give opposing party adequate notice that the unpleaded issue is entering the case
D. holding that implied consent is not established merely one party introduced evidence relevant to an unpleaded issue and the opposing party failed to object
E. holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.