Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it is mandatory and therefore the exclusive remedy for the Leonards’ counterclaims. Failure to arbitrate, Shepler argues, barred suit on the Leonards’ claims and was not subject to waiver by Shepler. ¶15 Most contract terms will be viewed as mandatory in the sense that the parties agreed that they will be bound by them and expect that they will be enforced by the court. However, this does not mean that contract terms cannot be waived or modified. It is also well established that parties may contract for an exclusive remedy that limits their rights, duties, and obligations. Graoch Assocs. #5 Ltd. P’ship v. Titan Constr. Corp., 126 Wn. App. 856, 865, 109 P.3d 830 (2005). But, the contract must clearly indicate the parties’ intent to make the stipulated remedy exclusive. Id. at 865-66 ; see also Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy
B. holding that a cgl policy such as the one at issue here does not insure against claims for defective or negligent workmanship or construction because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident and therefore claims for defective or negligent workmanship do not constitute an occurrence under the policy
C. holding the flsa does not provide the exclusive remedy for violations of its mandates
D. holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only
E. holding that one year warranty was not an exclusive remedy for defective construction where the contract did not so state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.