Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Appeals stated in Bluebonnet Savings, “The contract itself is notice of binding duties, and when it requires that amendments be in writing, that is additional notice not to rely on oral representations.” 907 S.W.2d at 908. In Bluebonnet, the court of appeals concluded, as a matter of law, that the borrowers failed to prove they justifiably relied to their detriment on statements by the lender’s agents that “everything looked fine” regarding a loan restructuring proposal and “everything would be okay.” Id. at 909. In Bluebonnet, the borrower, w jury’s verdict on Schleider’s alternative theory of negligent misrepresentation. Accordingly, we render judgment Schleider take nothing under his alternative theory of recovery. III. I d 366, 369 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). Because there is no evidence of a binding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding promise lacked definiteness of essential element ie the total sum to be underwritten during a period of six years (B) holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established (C) holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim (D) holding that damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief (E) holding dollar amount is not an essential element
Output (English): holding that damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief