Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
remains in full force and effect as to such other acts.” Id. (citing Sanchez v. Dickinson, 551 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1977, no writ)). When the parties have agreed to rights and obligations that are “collateral to and independent of the conveyance, such as completion of construction or escrow agreements pending construction,” those rights “survive[ ] a deed that is silent in respect to the construction or escrow agreement.” Id. We thus held in Harris that the parties’ execution of an escrow agreement “contemporaneously with” their - execution of a deed that “pertained only to the conveyance” itself “plainly shows” that the parties “did not intend to merge the conditions of the agreement into the deed.” Id. S.W.2d 818, 823 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1962, writ refused n.r.e.) . , Because Ms. Cosgrove’s promise to correct
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that deed was valid when the deed was conveyed to grantee corporation which formally incorporated after the conveyance
B. holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed
C. holding that sellers agreement to furnish title policy was a separate agreement not superseded by the deed and properly not included in the deed
D. holding that because the purchase price typically is not included in the deed this term of the contract of sale is not merged with the deed
E. recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.