Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): competing for pay phone locations of location owners, neither reason compels the Plaintiffs’ definition of the relevant product market. In du Pont, the government accused du Pont of monopolizing the market for cellophane, and the issue before the Court was whether the relevant product market consisted of cellophane alone or all flexible wrappings. Id. at 380-81, 76 S.Ct. 994. Notwithstanding the government’s attempt to define the relevant market narrowly, the Court held “that cellophane’s interchangeability with the other materials mentioned suffices to make it part of this flexible packaging market.” Id. at 400, 76 S.Ct. 994. In this case, the Plaintiffs argue for a narrower market, one lacking any interchangeable commodities. See Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 481, 112 S.Ct. 2072 (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that no public cellphones 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product (B) holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury (C) holding that the determination of whether a products dangers are obvious is made from the perspective of an ordinary user of the product rather than an ordinary person who is unfamiliar with the product (D) holding that a relevant market may consist of a single product or service and must be evaluated from the perspective of the choices available to kodak equipment owners (E) holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2
Output (English): holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury