Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): specific performance of an earnest money agreement. Id. at 1019. In that case, the plaintiffs had failed to make a payment in accordance with the parties' contract and the defendant, consequently, refused to convey the property. Id. at 1020. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the purchase contract, and the defendant was, therefore, required to defend by showing that the plaintiffs did not perform their contractual obligations. Id. at 1028. Since the defendant did not disaffirm the contract, but chose, instead, to rely on the terms of the contract, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was entitled to recover his attorneys' fees under the fee-shifting provision of the contract. Id. See also Oral Roberts University v. Anderson, 11 F.Supp.2d 13836 (N.D.Okla.1997) (<HOLDING>); Weter v. Archambault, 313 Mont. 284, 61 P.8d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prevailing party was entitled to attorneys fees under an option contract which had expired prior to litigation because the parties were litigating their performance under the terms of the contract (B) recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea (C) holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees (D) holding that prevailing party to contract dispute may recover attorneys fees either pursuant to contract or pursuant to statute (E) holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees
Output (English): holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees