Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CRCO’s first refusal rights to the NewVector interest. Oregon RSA, accepting the invitation of the district court, moved for sanctions on the basis of the defendants’ responses to discovery requests. The district court permitted the defendants to supplement the record by affidavits but did not hold an evidentiary hearing. By opinion of January 9, 1995 the district court awarded sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees caused by the defendants’ delayed responses to discovery requests. The district court found that the defendants had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) and that they had acted in bad faith. The defendants were found jointly and severally liable for the sa leged contract revoking the refusal. See McCombs v. McClelland, 223 Or. 475, 354 P.2d 311, 314 (1960) (<HOLDING>), nor was there evidence that the lawyer had 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration (B) holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal (C) holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable (D) holding that under oregon law an agreement must be supported by consideration to be legally enforceable (E) holding that under oregon law an acceptance of an offer must be positive unconditional unequivocal and unambiguous
Output (English): holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable