Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as Aladdin argues, to only section 29, it could just as reasonably be read to refer, as Bayerische argues, to the PMA as a whole. Indeed, the latter interpretation seems more likely. The clause at issue comes at the end of a sentence that states “no other person shall have any right ... under ... this Agreement, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.” (emphasis supplied). The following sentence, which identifies the Swap Counterparty as “an intended third party beneficiary” (emphasis supplied) has no language of limitation and could reasonably be read as clarification that, whomever else might be a third-party beneficiary, the Swap Counterparty is for certain. See also Sony Computer Entm’t Inc. v. Nippon Express U.S.A. (Ill), Inc., 313 F.Supp.2d 333, 336-38 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, in one of the cases the district 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a rule requiring an excess carrier to drop down upon the insolvency of the primary carrier would impermissibly shift the risk of the primary carrier to the excess carrier and would require insurance companies to scrutinize one anothers financial stability before issuing secondary policies (B) holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper (C) holding specifically provided otherwise herein broad enough to refer to full contract between sony and common carrier but not to provision in separate contract between a subcontracted carrier and railway company (D) holding the only lawful interstate common arrangement or through ticketing  is an arrangement between a motor carrier and the air carrier (E) recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer
Output (English): holding the only lawful interstate common arrangement or through ticketing  is an arrangement between a motor carrier and the air carrier