Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of a second-tier subcontractor's quantum meruit claim against a general contractor where it alleged that the general contractor had received compensation from the United States pursuant to its contract but had paid neither the subcontractor nor the plaintiff for the services rendered). 20 . In re Virginia Block Co., 16 B.R. 771, 774 (W.D.Va.Bankr.1982) (refusing to impose an implied contract on behalf of third party that contravened insured’s and insurer’s express contract under which dividends were to be paid to insured). 21 . See, e.g., Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Quality Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 90-2391, 1991 WL 30211, at *4 (4th Cir. Mar. 11, 1991) (unpublished); Virginia Block Co., 16 B.R. at 774; Rosenbaum v. Price Const. Co., 117 W.Va. 160, 184 S.E. 261, 263-64 (1936) (<HOLDING>). 22 .See, e.g., Raymond, Colesar, 961 F.2d at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant (B) holding that putting implied restrictions on an employmentatwill contract would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract which allowed for termination at any time (C) holding that the plaintiffs express atwill agreement precluded the existence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination (D) holding that an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter quoting 42 cjs implied and constructive contracts  34 p 33 (E) holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract
Output (English): holding that putting implied restrictions on an employmentatwill contract would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract which allowed for termination at any time