Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the parent who receives child support.” That ruling is erroneous. Support agreements that are voluntarily made by the parties are subject to the same rules of construction applicable to contracts generally. See Tiffany v. Tiffany, 1 Va.App. 11, 15, 332 S.E.2d 796, 799 (1985). The parties’ agreement expressly provides that “[t]he husband’s obligation to pay child support for each child shall continue until such time as each child reaches the age of twenty-three ... or twenty-two ... years and graduates from college.” The evidence proved that the middle child had not reached age twenty-three but did not prove her college status. Nothing in the agreement conditions the husband’s support obligation upon the place of the child’s residence. Cf. Tiffany, 1 Va.App. at 17, 332 S.E.2d at 800 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the issues of amount, due date, and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the father had to pay college costs because the agreement provided him no explicit veto over college selection (B) holding over (C) holding that an arbitral award of back pay that continued beyond the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement was perfectly appropriate because the agreement contained no provision restricting back pay to the term of the agreement (D) holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required (E) holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement
Output (English): holding that an arbitral award of back pay that continued beyond the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement was perfectly appropriate because the agreement contained no provision restricting back pay to the term of the agreement