With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir.2003) (alteration in original) (quoting CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1058 (Pa.Super.1999)). Silvis contends in her amended complaint that Ambit “breached its agreements with Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Members by charging rates that did not meet the contractual obligation to provide a competitive rate based on market factors.” Am. Compl., ¶ 105 (ECF No. 16). There is no express provision in the contract requiring Ambit to provide a competitive rate. Moreover, as described above, the contract between Silvis and Ambit is an unambiguous, fully integrated document made up of the Terms of Service and the Disclosure Statement. See McGuire v. Schneider, Inc., 368 Pa.Super. 344, 534 A.2d 115, 118 (1987), aff'd, 519 Pa. 439, 548 A.2d 1223 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Court may not add into the contract

A: holding that a contract was fully integrated where it stated that it contained the parties entire understanding was not ambiguous covered the disputed subject matter and conveyed no suggestion that anything beyond the four corners of the writing was necessary in order to ascertain the intent of the parties
B: holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
C: holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party
D: recognizing that the law of the shop includes the understanding of the parties
A.