Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): independent advice of her own choosing. In addition, Marilyn and Ball did not inform the brothers of the transfer until after it was completed, thereby depriving Gladys of the brothers’ advice. Proper independent advice in these circumstances means “showing that the donor had the benefit of conferring fully and privately upon the subject of his intended gift with a person who was not only competent to inform him correctly as to its legal effect, but who was furthermore so disassociated from the interests of the do-nee as to be in a position to advise with the donor impartially and confidently as to the consequences to himself of his proposed benefaction.” Merritt, 226 Iowa at 528, 284 N.W. at 404 (citation omitted); see also Luse v. Grenko, 251 Iowa 211, 219, 100 N.W.2d 170, 175 (1959) (<HOLDING>); McGaffee, 244 Iowa at 887, 56 N.W.2d at 39-40 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment (B) recognizing that the acceptance by the grantee of a deed poll signed and sealed by the grantor containing covenants to be performed by the grantee binds the latter to the performance of these covenants as effectually as if he had executed the instrument quotations and citation omitted (C) holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration (D) holding that independent advice to the transferor is an important consideration where there is a confidential relation between grantor and grantee who is in position of dominance no showing that siblings were made aware of plan to make defendant joint payee of mothers bank account and bonds (E) holding that where the state law has only an indirect effect on the plan and where it is one of general application which pertains to an area of important state concern the court should find there has been no preemption
Output (English): holding that where the state law has only an indirect effect on the plan and where it is one of general application which pertains to an area of important state concern the court should find there has been no preemption