Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that he intends to perform. If the objection to discharge-ability is based upon an unperformed promise, the proponent must show that the debtor did not intend to perform or had no reasonable basis to believe that she could perform when she made the promise.” Aldus Green Co. v. Mitchell (In re Mitchell), 227 B.R. 45, 50-51 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1998) (citations omitted). See also In re D’Atria, 128 B.R. 71, 76 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991) (“In order for the aggrieved party to the contract to prevail on a claim for fraud in such case, there must also be proof that the other party had no intention of honoring the obligation imposed under the contract when it was signed”); Little Family Farms Corp. v. Mortensen (In re Morten-sen), 2009 WL 721709, 2009 Bankr.LEXIS 765 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa March 17, 2009) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff must establish that his damages 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor (B) holding that a surety after becoming aware of a single claim for labor and materials by a subcontractor acted reasonably by directing the owner to withhold further payments from the contractor even though contractor had not been declared in default by the owner (C) holding a premises owner is a general contractor for purposes of the statutory employer provision (D) holding that where owner and contractor frequently discussed progress of construction project and advancement of money by owner to contractor and contractor misappropriated some of the money debt was not excepted from discharge under bankruptcy code  523a2 because owner did not show that contractor had intent not to perform when the agreement was made (E) holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors
Output (English): recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor