Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
offer subject to the express condition that the Seller assent that this [p]urchase [o]rder constitutes the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller.” Purchase order, ¶ 1. In other words, the purchase order was a conditional acceptance. See Ralph Shrader, Inc. v. Diamond International Corp., 833 F.2d 1210, 1215 (6th Cir.1987) (Ralph Shrader). In Ralph Shrader, the Sixth Circuit held that, when a party limited acceptance to “[t]he terms set forth on the reverse side,” it was a conditional acceptance. Id. The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument that language in a contract had to mimic the “expressly made conditional” language of UCC § 2-207(1) in order to be a conditional acceptance. Id. n. 4; see also Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91, 101 (3d Cir.1991) . To require the exact language of the UCC
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the offerors signature on the offerees conditional acceptance bound the offeror to all the terms therein
B. holding that a private actors conduct was not state action just because the government failed to supervise that partys conduct
C. holding that a conditional acceptance can be manifested merely in a partys conduct
D. holding that performance may be valid acceptance
E. recognizing that a partys initial entry of a restricted appearance manifested its lack of consent to personal jurisdiction but that partys subsequent actions constituted a waiver of its jurisdictional defenses
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.