Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): who inspected the property for termites and provided a termite bond and report. This appeal, however, involves only the validity of the preliminary injunction against the Blaylocks' foreclosure. 3 . The sales contract provided: "9. NECESSITY OF INSPECTION: Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that Alabama law imposes a duty on Purchaser to thoroughly inspect a property, for defects or otherwise, in accordance with the terms of this contract and prior to the sale....” 4 . The narrow "health or safety" exception to the general no-duty-to-disclose rule is also inapplicable to this case because the Carys, failed to make a sufficient showing that the water damage to the house (i.e., wood rot and fungus growth) posed a direct threat to their health or safety. Cf. Fennell, 529 So.2d at 1004 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the other two narrow exceptions to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where no evidence was designated to show that a car buyer knew that a sale violated the rights of the dealership that owned the car the buyers were buyers in the ordinary course of business for purposes of indcode  26112019 (B) holding that even though the contract limited the buyers remedies to specific performance or a refund of earnest money they were entitled to damages in the amount of the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property where the seller thwarted the buyers right to specific performance by selling the property to another at a higher price (C) holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it (D) holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house (E) holding that a duty to disclose a health hazard arose where the buyers of a house made a sufficient showing that a defect in the furnace serving the house would have if not remedied caused the release of carbon monoxide resulting in the buyers possible injury or death
Output (English): holding that where no evidence was designated to show that a car buyer knew that a sale violated the rights of the dealership that owned the car the buyers were buyers in the ordinary course of business for purposes of indcode  26112019