Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): may vary from, or are in addition to, those found in this Agreement. If your principal place of business is located in one of those states, this Agreement is amended to the fullest extent necessary to provide you those rights. Id. at 77. This provision resulted from DMI’s request to modify the initial draft of the agreement, which had provided North Carolina law would govern. DMI wanted the benefit of the South Dakota Dealer Protection Act (SDDPA), which it understood to permit termination of the agreement only if DMI justly provoked LeeBoy through misconduct. See S.D. Codified Laws § 87-5-3 (prohibiting a manufacturer or distributor from canceling a dealer’s franchise “unfairly ... and without just provocation”); Groseth Int’l, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 159, 168 (S.D.1987) (<HOLDING>). After entering the agreement, DMI took its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding wholesale dealer had antitrust standing in suit against manufacturer where dealer refused to comply with minimum resale price levels set by manufacturer and was terminated as a dealer (B) holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government (C) holding that an automobile dealers liability insurer was not liable for any damage allegedly caused by the negligence of the dealer and sustained in an accident involving an automobile purchased from the dealer or to defend the dealer in the negligence action where the injury occurred outside of the policy period and occurrence was defined in the policy as an accident including injurious exposure to conditions which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damages   (D) holding just provocation under  3753 requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer (E) holding that a finding of misconduct under section 44303626 requires intentional repeated instances of misconduct or violations of explicit policies after the employee has received warnings
Output (English): holding that a finding of misconduct under section 44303626 requires intentional repeated instances of misconduct or violations of explicit policies after the employee has received warnings