Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and time of the sale. That notice, had it been given, would have stated the time of the sale. See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 51.002. If appellants wanted to avoid the sale, they were required to pay the balance on or before that time. While it would have been preferable for the bankruptcy court’s order itself to have given the parties a specific time on August 1, 2000 in which to make the $650,000.00 payment, we cannot agree that that flaw allows us to ignore the plain language of the order. Appellees’ also direct us to other extrinsic evidence to show the bankruptcy court did not intend the sale to occur only on August 1, 2000. However, the bankruptcy court’s order is not ambiguous. When an order is not ambiguous, we enforce it literally. Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439, 441-42 (Tex.2003) ; Gulf Ins. Co. v. Bums Motors, Inc., 22 S.W.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding extrinsic evidence contradicting language in will inadmissible when will is unambiguous
B. holding that arbitration clauses as contractual agreements must be enforced to their terms
C. holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous
D. holding that unambiguous decree must be enforced literally without consideration of matters extrinsic to the decree
E. holding that extrinsic evidence admissible to determine intent of parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.