Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to any relief in this suit.” Id. at 620, 58 S.Ct. 385; see also Mobil-Teria Catering Co. v. Spradling, 576 S.W.2d 282 (Mo.1978), overruled on other grounds, Alumax Foils, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 939 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.1997) (finding that a municipality may not impose a tax on gross receipts derived from places of business lying outside its geographical boundaries). ¶ 12 The Arizona Supreme Court applied these principles in Gorman v. City of Phoenix, concluding that portions of the property to be annexed “were not contiguous to the City of Phoenix and that therefore the city commission is without jurisdiction to annex the territory involved.” 70 Ariz. 59, 65, 216 P.2d 400, 404 (1950). The court held that unless a sufficient petition l, 98 Ariz. 382, 385-88, 405 P.2d 871, 873-75 (1965) ; Cornman Tweedy 560, L.L.C. v. City of Casa
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation
B. holding that the signature requirement was an indispensable condition precedent and the failure to comply with it deprived the town of jurisdiction to annex
C. holding the trial court may determine issue of condition precedent to enforcement of agreement to arbitrate
D. holding that failure to comply with statutory prerequisite deprived the courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction
E. holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.