Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for student’s agreement to successfully complete degree requirement, abide by school’s guidelines, and pay tuition, court stated student had to prove existence of contract containing terms upon which she based her suit). The First Court of Appeals held that a school’s catalog constitutes a written contract between the educational institution and the student, where entrance is had under its terms. See University of Tex. H atalog contained express language that “[t]he provisions of this catalog do not constitute a contract, express or implied, between any applicant, student, or faculty member and The University of Texas at Arlington or The University of Texas System,” negating inference of intent by school to be bound its terms, no contract existed); Eiland, 764 S.W.2d at 838 . The Laws contend they have tendered
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant
B. holding that where catalog contained express notice that the provisions of this catalog are subject to change without notice and do not constitute an irrevocable contract between any student  and the university of texas medical school at galveston no enforceable contract existed because express language negated any intent by school to be bound
C. holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable
D. holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter
E. holding that putting implied restrictions on an employmentatwill contract would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract which allowed for termination at any time
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.