Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
269, 196 P.3d 970 (stating that a party may not seek a declaratory judgment when additional fact-finding or agency expertise is necessary). Thus, despite the fact that both the Smiths and the Stillmans presented identical and purely legal questions, the Smiths were required to comply with the administrative process they started, while the Stillmans remained free to seek a declaratory judgment. Smith, 2007-NMSC-055, ¶¶ 17, 23-25, 27, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300. In Smith, the question of law was limited to whether the agency “had [the] right to even make a decision.” Id. ¶ 17; see Baca, 2008-NMSC-047, ¶ 21, 144 N.M. 530, 189 P.3d 663 (stating that the validity of a contract presents a purely legal question); Stennis v. City of Santa Fe, 2008-NMSC-008, ¶ 14, 143 N.M. 320, 176 P.3d 309 . In declaratory judgment actions, arguments
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a determination that precluded an alien from even applying for relief under section 1255 is a purely legal question that is reviewable
B. holding that whether a city has the authority to enact a particular statutory scheme is a purely legal question
C. holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end
D. holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract
E. holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.