Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). See discussion supra. By its terms, the release agreement at issue here is to be construed according to the contract law of Illinois, and the Court so construes it. See Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 243 n. 8, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) (stating that “a [federal] court ordinarily must apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits” (citing Klaxon v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)); In re Marriage of Adams, 133 Ill.2d 437, 141 Ill.Dec. 448, 551 N.E.2d 635, 638 (1990) (citing Reighley v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 390 Ill. 242, 61 N.E.2d 29, 33 (1945) ). Federal courts’ “role in interpreting a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the applicability of choice of law clauses in contracts
B. holding that party waived an objection to choice of law
C. holding even though idaho law does not permit the enforcement of noncompete clauses in employment contracts erisa statutes allow forfeiture of pension benefits in excess of erisas minimum vesting requirements in noncompete clauses
D. holding that under texas choice of law principles contractual choice of law provisions are generally upheld
E. holding that government contracts must be read as if they included clauses required by law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.