Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
858 P.2d 380, 381 (1993)). In doing so, we are “bound to accept all the factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Marcoz v. Summa Corporation, 106 Nev. 737, 739, 801 P.2d 1346, 1347 (1990) (citing Edgar v. Wagner, 101 Nev. 226, 227-28, 699 P.2d 110, 111-12 (1985)). Kaldi contends that his exclusive agency arrangement with Farmers created an employer-employee relationship between himself and the companies. The plain language of the Agreement does not support Kaldi’s assertion. “It has long been the policy in Nevada that absent some countervailing reason, contracts will be construed from the written language and enforced as written.” Ellison v. C.S.A.A., 106 Nev. 601, 603, 797 P.2d 975, 977 (1990) (citing Southern Trust v. K & B Door Co., 104 Nev. 564, 568, 763 P.2d 353, 355 (1988) ). Here, provision “I” of the agreement
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if a document is facially clear it will be construed according to its language
B. holding that when the language of a statute is clear courts should not substitute their judgment for that of congress and should enforce the statute according to its terms
C. holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words
D. holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts
E. holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.