Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): choice of law applies to the tort claims, the one year limitations period is unenforceable under Oklahoma law pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 216. In response, Parametric claims Okla. Stat. tit. 35 § 216 does not apply to tort claims, citing McDonald v. Amtel, Inc., 633 P.2d 743 (Okla.1981). Parametric also asserts that the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code, which allows contractual limitations on commencement of a lawsuit, applies to the Licensing Agreement, and thus such provisions do not violate Oklahoma public policy, citing Graphic Sales, Inc. v. Sperry Univac Division, Sperry Corp., 824 F.2d 576 (7th Cir.1987) (implying that the Uniform Commercial Code applied to leases of computer equipment); Colonial Life Ins. v. Electronic Data Systems, 817 F.Supp. 235 (D.N.H.1993) (<HOLDING>). A. NMP’s Breach of Contract Claim The 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that licensing agreement controlled the scope of the users rights in the software (B) holding that the uniform commercial code specifically encompassed a software licensing agreement (C) holding unconscionable a disclaimer of warranties under the uniform commercial code where there was allocation of commercial risks in a socially or economically unreasonable manner (D) recognizing the purpose of a uniform statewide building code (E) holding that a memorandum referring to the allocation of stock ownership did not satisfy  8319 of the uniform commercial code
Output (English): holding unconscionable a disclaimer of warranties under the uniform commercial code where there was allocation of commercial risks in a socially or economically unreasonable manner