Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
from seeking to accelerate the rent, despite being in possession of the leased property. The same is not true regarding the annual maintenance fee. First, the acceleration clause does not mention the annual maintenance fee, only stating that “the Minimum Rent for the unexpired portion of the Term shall be accelerated... and shall become due and be paid upon the demand of [IMAX].” (Doc. 1, Ex. A at p. 11 of 26.) Thus, Plaintiff has no contractual claim to acceleration of the annual maintenance fee. Second, Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if it were allowed to accelerate the annual maintenance fee where it is in possession of the IMAX system and cannot possibly have any future maintenance obligations to Defendant. See Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999) . Plaintiff would essentially be paid for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party is unjustly enriched where under the circumstances it would be inequitable for the party to retain a benefit for which it has not provided value
B. holding that a constructive trust is imposed in order to prevent injustice and that such a trust may be imposed when the circumstances show that it would be inequitable for the holder of legal title to retain the property
C. holding that it is not
D. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
E. holding that a constructive trust will be imposed where the evidence is clear and convincing that one party will be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the entire property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.