Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not limited to disputes between nonprofit entities. Conditions Precedent Teco asserts Valero has failed to comply with contractual conditions precedent to enforce the agreement to arbitrate. Valero, on the other hand, maintains that whether it has satisfied any condition precedent is a question for the arbitrator, not the court. In support of this contention, Valero cites several federal cases construing the Federal Arbitration Act. See, e.g., Del E. Webb Constr. v. Richardson Hosp. Auth., 823 F.2d 145, 149 (5 th Cir.1987); Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone, 838 F.Supp. 1156, 1158 (N.D.Tex.1993), aff'd, 47 F:3d 750 (5 th Cir.1995). We note that in construing the TGAA, there is a conflict among Texas courts of appeals on this issue. See, e.g., D. Wilson Constr. Co., 988 S.W.2d at 395 ; City of Lubbock v. Hancock, 940 S.W.2d 123,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court must determine whether an agreement to arbitrate was reached when several contracts the subject of a class action allegedly did not contain an arbitration provision
B. holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate
C. holding that the trial court must determine whether there was an agreement to arbitrate when the party contesting arbitration claimed she had never signed the contract or intended to be bound
D. holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation
E. holding the trial court may determine issue of condition precedent to enforcement of agreement to arbitrate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.