flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive shall be entitled to vacation in accordance with the Company’s standard vacation policy extended to employees of the Company generally, at levels commensurate with Executive’s position. The Executive shall be entitled to any other benefits and perquisites on substantially the same terms and conditions as may be awarded to the employees of the Company from time to time.

assistant: Vacations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, the Loan Agreement and the Other Documents constitute the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and supersedes all other discussions, promises, representations, warranties, agreements and understandings between the parties with respect thereto. This Agreement may not be modified, altered or amended except by an agreement in writing signed by all the parties hereto. The parties anticipate that discussions addressing the Stipulated Default, the Loan Agreement and the Other Documents may take place in the future. During the course of such discussions, the parties may touch upon and possibly reach preliminary understandings on one or more issues prior to concluding negotiations or executing definitive documentation to memorialize such understandings. Notwithstanding such understandings, none of the parties will be bound by any such understandings unless and until an agreement is reached on all issues and such agreement is reduced to writing and signed by the parties.

assistant: Entire Agreements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties are entering into this Agreement and any Terminal Service Order in reliance upon and shall fully comply with all Applicable Law which directly or indirectly affects the Products hereunder, or any receipt, throughput delivery, transportation, handling or storage of Products hereunder or the ownership, operation or condition of the Storage Facility. Each Party shall be responsible for compliance with all Applicable Laws associated with such Party’s respective performance hereunder and the operation of such Party’s facilities. In the event any action or obligation imposed upon a Party under this Agreement and any Terminal Service Order shall at any time be in conflict with any requirement of Applicable Law, then this Agreement and any Terminal Service Order, shall immediately be modified to conform the action or obligation so adversely affected to the requirements of the Applicable Law, and all other provisions of this Agreement and any Terminal Service Order shall remain effective.

assistant: Applicable Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Wherever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement shall be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

assistant: Severability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Without limitation to Section 9.08 ( Sanctions; Anti-Corruption; Anti-Money Laundering ), the Borrower shall, and shall cause each Subsidiary, to (a) comply in all material respects with, and conduct its business and operations in compliance in all material respects with, all applicable Laws (including Environmental Laws, consumer leasing and protection Law and any federal, state or local regulatory Laws) and Permits, and (b) procure, maintain in full force and effect and comply with all Permits by the date such Permit is necessary or required to have been obtained under applicable Law which, if not so procured, maintained and complied with, could not reasonably be expected to have an adverse impact on 5% or more of the Portfolio Value.

assistant: Compliance With Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Use Act (“CUA”) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) do not change the probable cause analysis. Although “[pjrobable cause depends on all of the surrounding facts, including those that reveal a person’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver under” [the CUA or MMPA], People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 335, 49 P.3d 1067 (2002) (citations omitted), Carpenter has not alleged that Deputy Beuer possessed any information suggesting that Carpenter had such a status. Moreover, the police are not required to investigate the existence of affirmative defenses under the CUA or MMPA once probable cause has been established. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1032 (9th Cir.2003); People v. Fisher, 96 Cal.App.4th 1147, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838, 839, 841 (2002) (<HOLDING>); People v. Wright, 40 Cal.4th 81, 85, 51 Options: A. holding mmpa is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial B. holding cua is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial C. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense D. holding that an affirmative defense is ordinarily lost if not timely raised E. holding that laches is an affirmative defense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding cua is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the face of an express warranty stating that no security interest exists. To the contrary, case law supports the proposition that an express “free and clear” warranty precludes a finding of actual knowledge of a security interest. The district court in Black Diamond directly considered this issue in the context of § 9-320. Id. The court wrote that “Black Diamond specifically guaranteed that it ‘had good title’ to the coal, had ‘the right to sell’ the coal to Commodities, and ‘that [the coal] shall he free from all liens, encumbrances and claims.’ Consequently, Commodities acquired the coal without knowledge that its purchases violated CIT Group’s inventory lien.” Id. (emphasis in original); see also Victory Nat’l Bank of Nowata v. Stewart, 6 Kan.App.2d 847, 636 P.2d 788, 790 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The bankruptcy court in Black Diamond also Options: A. holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty B. holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to 672606 C. holding buyer liable for balance of contract price of accepted goods D. holding that a buyer who purchases goods subject to an express warranty that the goods are free from all liens takes free of any unperfected security interest E. holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a buyer who purchases goods subject to an express warranty that the goods are free from all liens takes free of any unperfected security interest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Company nor any other Person authorized by the Company to act on its behalf has retained, utilized or been represented by any broker or finder in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement whose fees the Purchasers would be required to pay, other than as previously disclosed in writing to Purchasers.

assistant: Brokers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To Purchaser’s knowledge, the execution and delivery of, and consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement is not prohibited by, and will not conflict with, constitute grounds for termination of, or result in the breach of any of the agreements or instruments to which Purchaser is now party or by which it is bound, or to Purchaser’s knowledge, any order, rule or regulation of any court or other governmental agency or official.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and the Subsidiaries own or possess adequate enforceable rights to use all patents, patent applications, trademarks (both registered and unregistered), service marks, trade names, trademark registrations, service mark registrations, copyrights, licenses and know-how (including trade secrets and other unpatented and/or unpatentable proprietary or confidential information, systems or procedures) (collectively, the " Intellectual Property "), necessary for the conduct of their respective businesses as conducted as of the date hereof, except to the extent that the failure to own or possess adequate rights to use such Intellectual Property would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; the Company and the Subsidiaries have not received any written notice of any claim of infringement or conflict which asserted Intellectual Property rights of others, which infringement or conflict, if the subject of an unfavorable decision, would result in a Material Adverse Effect; there are no pending, or to the Company's knowledge, threatened judicial proceedings or interference proceedings against the Company or its Subsidiaries challenging the Company's or any of its Subsidiary's rights in or to or the validity of the scope of any of the Company's or any Subsidiary's patents, patent applications or proprietary information; no other entity or individual has any right or claim in any of the Company's or any of its Subsidiary's patents, patent applications or any patent to be issued therefrom by virtue of any contract, license or other agreement entered into between such entity or individual and the Company or any Subsidiary or by any non-contractual obligation, other than by written licenses granted by the Company or any Subsidiary; the Company and the Subsidiaries have not received any written notice of any claim challenging the rights of the Company or its Subsidiaries in or to any Intellectual Property owned, licensed or optioned by the Company or any Subsidiary which claim, if the subject of an unfavorable decision would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Intellectual Property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: parties. In Soldal, the police refused to allow the owner of a mobile home to oppose an eviction by the owner of the park where the home was located, even though the police knew the eviction was illegal. The mobile home owner brought a § 1983 action against the park owner and police. The park owner was held by the circuit court to be a state actor based on his conspiracy with the police to illegally evict the mobile home owner. Id. at 58-9, 113 S.Ct. 538. This holding was not disturbed on appeal to the Supreme Court. Id. at 60 n. 6, 113 S.Ct. 538. Here, there is no evidence that Gage knew that Peng was innocent of robbery. The trial court correctly concluded that a finding of concerted .action could not be found on this record. See Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); accord King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, Options: A. holding that a single request that the police perform their peacekeeping responsibilities may be insufficient to create a joint undertaking B. holding that employees subjective belief that age discrimination occurred is insufficient to create a jury issue C. holding that private parties may contract to transfer financial responsibilities under cercla D. holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue E. holding that the plaintiffs unsupported allegations about the defendants travels to the district were insufficient to create personal jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a single request that the police perform their peacekeeping responsibilities may be insufficient to create a joint undertaking
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: stipulations in a trial brief may be treated as “judicial admissions.” American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226-27 (9th Cir.1988). Such admissions, which “have the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact,” are binding on both the parties and the court, including this court. Id. at 226 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the government does not argue here, and we find no reason to suppose, that Davis’ bag was not closed. The fact that Davis stored his bag under a bed, even though the bed was not exclusively under his control, strongly supports our conclusion that his expectation of privacy in the bag was reasonable. See United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1154— 55 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Ramos, 12 F.3d 1019, Options: A. holding that defendant had expectation of privacy in a briefcase placed beneath the bed even though he had overstayed his lease B. holding that defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy in contents of locked safe stored in his apartment but owned by third party C. holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in gambling records stored under his parents bed although he did not reside regularly at his parents home he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight D. holding that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his hosts home E. holding that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of stored email

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in gambling records stored under his parents bed although he did not reside regularly at his parents home he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: husband for wrongful death and also asserted causes of action against the insurance company for bad faith and misrepresentation based on its refusal to properly settle her claim. Id. at ¶ 5. ¶ 13 In Speiry, we determined that the plaintiffs “wrongful death claim [submitted to the insurer] was not based upon her own coverage but on [her husband’s] liability coverage for negligence.” Id. at ¶ 10. Thus, we concluded that the plaintiff could not be considered a party to the insurance contract for purposes of her bad faith action against the insurer since the insurer, in its capacity as the liability insurer of her husband, owed her no contractual good faith duties to settle her claim. Id. at ¶ 11; see also Pixton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 809 P.2d 746, 749-50 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14 Allstate argues that, like the plaintiff Options: A. holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured B. holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured C. holding that an insurer which insures a tortfeasor under a liability policy has no obligation of good faith and fair dealing to an injured third party even where the injured third party also carries a separate policy with the insurer D. holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer E. holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for judgment in excess of policy limits

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an insurer which insures a tortfeasor under a liability policy has no obligation of good faith and fair dealing to an injured third party even where the injured third party also carries a separate policy with the insurer
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the “CCP aggravator is one of the most serious aggravators provided by the statutory scheme,” and upheld the imposition of death where the trial court found four statutory aggrava-tors and three statutory mitigators. 19 So.3d 277, 304 (Fla.2009). In that case, the defendant had obtained a firearm in advance of abducting his victims, drove them to a remote location, and then shot them execution style. Id. at 299. Similarly, evidence presented at Martin’s trial suggested that over the course of the day, Martin executed his plan to steal Jacey’s car and kill her. Martin invited Jacey to spend the evening with him by sending her a series of text messages and calling her. Once they were together, he took her to a remote location where he murdered her with a hammer. Although the mu 98) (<HOLDING>). This Court’s discussion of mental health Options: A. holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors B. holding death penalty proportionate where there were two aggravating factors avoiding arrest and commission during course of a burglary with some nonstatutory mitigation C. holding that trial court must consider both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors D. holding death penalty proportionate where there were two aggravating factorsthe murder was committed for pecuniary gain and defendant had been convicted of a prior violent felonyand where there were two statutory and three nonstatutory mitigating circumstances E. holding death penalty proportionate where the trial court found ccp and three other aggravators and twentynine nonstatutory mitigators

assistant: The best answer is A. holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Agatha drafted a description of the work the riding crew on the barges would be doing while the barges were being towed; this description was passed on to Aon and then to Beazley. Aon relies on Agatha’s sworn statement that “I believe that the answer I gave to Mr. Brown’s email [containing the description in question] was a fair and accurate presentation of the activities the riding crew would be undertaking.” However, Horizon is not alleging in this suit that it' believes its description of the work the riding crew would be doing while the barges were being towed was not a fair and accurate presentation of the activities the riding crew would be undertaking. Therefore, this prior sworn statement is not inconsistent with Horizon’s position in v.App.-Dallas 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The Bocanegra court expressly states this Options: A. holding that plea agreement with drug enforcement agency agent not enforceable when agent was not authorized by united states attorney to enter agreement B. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only with the existence of the alleged oral contract C. holding that the lack of evidence of the alleged principals control over the alleged agent precludes the finding of an agency relationship D. holding there was fact issue as to whether agency relationship existed based on affiants testifying to alleged oral agreement to serve as agent E. holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified

assistant: The best answer is D. holding there was fact issue as to whether agency relationship existed based on affiants testifying to alleged oral agreement to serve as agent
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not testify as a nonexpert fact witness about what he did and directly observed during the reenactment. Relying on several out-of-state cases, the court concluded that the relevant legal inquiry for admissibility of reenactment evidence generally is whether the reenactment was conducted under conditions substantially similar to those existing at the time of the event in question, otherwise the evidence would be excluded as irrelevant and likely to mislead the jury. See Loevsky v. Carter, 773 P.2d 1120, 1125 (Haw. 1989) (“[W]hen a test or experiment is an attempt to reenact the original happening, the essential elements of the experiment must be substantially similar to those existing at the time of the accident.”) (quotation omitted); State v. Leroux, 584 A.2d 778, 780-81 (N.H. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Even allowing for additional evidence offered Options: A. holding that trial court could properly have found testimony explaining a videotaped reenactment was substantially more likely to mislead the jury than to be probative under rule 403 B. holding that although the instruction at issue could have been worded more specifically the jury instructions as a whole did not mislead the jury as to the law C. holding that although portion of trial courts jury charge was inapplicable any error in providing it was harmless in light of the fact that charge considered as a whole was not likely to confuse or mislead the jury D. holding that evidence necessary to the governments rebuttal of a defendants case could not be excluded under rule 403 but could have been if it was introduced only to bolster the prosecutions case E. holding that admission of a summary chart was harmless because it was clear that the summary did not mislead the jury and the evidence introduced at trial was more than sufficient to prove the elements as to each defendant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial court could properly have found testimony explaining a videotaped reenactment was substantially more likely to mislead the jury than to be probative under rule 403
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All laws, rules and regulations of any jurisdiction applicable to the Borrower or its Subsidiaries from time to time concerning or relating to bribery or corruption, including the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010, and other similar anti-corruption legislation in other jurisdictions .

assistant: Anti-Corruption Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no action, suit, inquiry, notice of violation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) (collectively, an “ Action ”) including any one that (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Securities or (ii) could, if there were an unfavorable decision, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary, nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

assistant: Litigations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: • you are a small-scale independent production company , non-profit , or artist , in which case you may use the vimeo service to showcase or promote your own creative works .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not prohibit the “substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person’s detention.” Swain, 430 U.S. at 381, 97 S.Ct. 1224 (emphasis added); cf. Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 977 (10th Cir.1998) (“Whether [AEDPA’s] one-year limitation period violates the Suspension Clause depends upon whether the limitation period renders the habeas remedy ‘inadequate or ineffective’ to test the legality of detention.” (quoting Swain, 430 U.S. at 381, 97 S.Ct. 1224)). And at least as a matter of statutory interpretation — i.e., interpreting the “ineffective or inadequate” language in § 2255(e) — we have held that § 2255’s remedy is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of Mr. Abernathy’s detention. See Prost, 636 F.3d at 580 (<HOLDING>). Thus, for purposes of the Suspension Clause, Options: A. holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement B. holding that the defendant is precluded from bringing his ncmiosbased statutory interpretation argument under prost C. holding that the application of revised 2255 which would have barred the petitioner who had filed his first 2255 motion prior to aedpas enactment from filing a second 2255 motion would have had retroactive effect because the petitioner might well have waited to file that initial motion had he foreseen aedpas revision of 2255 D. holding premagwood that where a first 2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second 2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa E. holding that the petitioners initial 2255 motion offered him an adequate and effective means for testing his statutory interpretation argument

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the petitioners initial 2255 motion offered him an adequate and effective means for testing his statutory interpretation argument
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not a step ‘beyond the purview of legal action for defamation to seek an end to the defendant’s alleged defamatory statements— whether the defamation defendant regards those statements as truthful or not”); see also Francisconi, 2008 WL 1971336 at *3 (finding defendant’s claim that plaintiff served process for the improper purpose of forcing vacation of the premises insufficient when “unlawful detainer proceedings are, by design, intended to ‘force vacation of the premises’ ” (citation omitted)). Furthermore, Houlahan has failed to make a colorable showing that defendants committed a willful “act in the use of the process other than such as would be proper in the regular prosecution of the charge” Hall, 147 A.2d at 868 (emphasis in original); see also Anderson Dev. Co., 116 P.3d at 341 (<HOLDING>). The only act beyond the mere issuance of Options: A. holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings B. holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute C. holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process D. holding that judicial privilege does not apply to the appellants claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process E. holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller has complied, and is currently in compliance with, all federal (except solely with respect to any federal law that directly conflicts with state and local cannabis laws, regulations and ordinances), state and local laws, regulations and ordinances applicable to the development, ownership, operation, maintenance and management of the Real Property, and/or otherwise applicable to Seller, including, without limitation, all laws, regulations and ordinances relating to zoning, planning, land use and building restrictions, construction, Environmental Laws, subdivision, fire, health and safety, disability, alcoholic beverage sales and the cultivation, processing, storing and distributing of cannabis, cannabis-infused products and materials derived from or used in the cultivation, processing, storing and distribution of cannabis. Seller has received no notice of non-compliance, and, to the best of Seller's knowledge, the Real Property is in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations (including without limitation those relating to zoning and the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq., the Provisions Governing Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities), and all regulations promulgated thereunder, and all amendments, revisions or modifications thereto). Seller has no notice or knowledge that any government agency or any employee or official considers the construction of the Real Property or its operation or use to have failed to comply with any law, ordinance, regulation or order or that any investigation has been commenced or is contemplated respecting any such possible failure of compliance. There are no unsatisfied requirements for repairs, restorations or improvements from any person, entity or authority, including, but not limited to, any tenant, lender, insurance carrier or governmental authority. All driveway entrances and exits to the Real Property are permanent and no special access or other permits are required to maintain the same. All existing streets and other improvements, including water lines, sewer lines, sidewalks, curbing and streets at the Real Property either enter the Real Property through adjoining public streets, or, if they enter through adjoining private lands, do so in accordance with valid, irrevocable easements running to the benefit of the owner of the Real Property. Seller has not received from any insurance company or Board of Fire Underwriters any notice, which remains uncured, of any defect or inadequacy in connection with the Real Property or its operation.

assistant: Compliance With Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: your notice to us must be sent to : linden research , inc. , 945 battery street , san francisco , ca 94111 , attention : general counsel .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties hereto.

assistant: Governing Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term, provision, covenant or restriction of this Agreement, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.

assistant: Severability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a court address questions pertaining to its or a lower court’s jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. 523 U. S., at 94-95. In the lower courts, in addition to relying on Totten, the Government argued that the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1), required that respondents’ claims be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than in the District Court. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and the Government did not seek review on this question in its petition for certiorari. Pet. for Cert. 8, n. 2. We may assume for purposes of argument that this Tucker Act question is the kind of jurisdictional issue that Steel Co. directs must be resolved before addressing the merits of a claim. Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 212, 215 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, application of the Totten rule Options: A. holding that sovereign immunity may be waived as to a recoup ment noting that the waiver can be by statutory consent to be sued or by the institution of the particular action B. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal C. holding that the tucker act does not waive the governments sovereign immunity for federal reserve activities D. holding that the tucker act effects a waiver of sovereign immunity and observing that the existence of consent to be sued is a prerequisite for jurisdiction E. holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the tucker act effects a waiver of sovereign immunity and observing that the existence of consent to be sued is a prerequisite for jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 543 A.2d 808, 812 (D.C.1988)). Thus, under both D.C.Code § 45-2551(b) and the terms of the lease, a notice to correct or vacate is deemed to expire at the beginning of the first rental period following the passage of thirty days. In preparing the notice, Ms. New-some erred when she stated that appellants must cure their violations by August 26. The thirty-day period within which to cure or vacate expired not on August 26, as the notice said, but rather on September 1. But this error did not make the notice invalid per se, as appellants contend; instead, it had the effect of extending the time within which appellants must pay their back rent. Appellants had more than sufficient actual notice to correct their violations of the lease or vacate by September 1. See Cormier, 609 A.2d at 682 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the complaint was not Options: A. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons B. holding that tenant had received more than 30 days to correct violations of the lease when the notice was served on february 27 and the complaint was filed on april 4 C. holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease D. holding that notice provisions of rcra and cwa were satisfied where proper parties had notice in fact of the alleged violations more than 60 days before suit was filed E. holding that landlord was not liable where dog injured child nine days after landlordtenant relationship was established and where the lease called for 30 days notice before it could be terminated

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tenant had received more than 30 days to correct violations of the lease when the notice was served on february 27 and the complaint was filed on april 4
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: quoted from Denlinger, reiterated Shaffer’s allegations regarding the arbitration agreement, and concluded that the allegations amounted to a valid cause of action so that it would not dismiss the complaint on the basis that the FAA prohibited the court from hearing the matter. We conclude that the District Court erred in so holding. As a preliminary matter, it appears that the District Court conflated two distinct doctrines, namel ressed its lack of concern for unequal bargaining power when neither of the parties involved were consumers. 608 A.2d at 1066. The court concluded that the Appellant was an experienced businessman in spite of his repeated argument that he was only a high school graduate. Id.; see also Aamco Transmissions, Inc. v. Harris, 1990 WL 83336, at *4 (E.D.Pa.1990) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we see no reason to view Shaffer Options: A. holding that a franchise contract requiring franchisee to waive right to jury trial was not adhesion contract as franchisee was perfectly free to reject the deal B. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract C. holding that a controllers signature on a contract containing a forum selection clause was insufficient to waive sovereign immunity in part because the right to waive immunity was reserved to the tribal council D. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial E. holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a franchise contract requiring franchisee to waive right to jury trial was not adhesion contract as franchisee was perfectly free to reject the deal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was lawfully tried by the military court, as we believe he was, then he was subject to the procedures and penalties which the law for the military forces provided. Since we have concluded that he was properly under regulation of military law, he was subject to the authority that included “. . not only the creation of offenses but the fixing of the punishment therefor.” Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, supra, 361 U.S. at 246, 80 S.Ct. at 303. We, therefore, hold that the District Court properly denied relief and its judgments are affirmed. 1 . The former action was L-1003 in which Chief Judge Stanley appeared to accept the fact that the offenses were not service connected and said the sole issue was the retroactivity of O’Oallahan and held it not re . 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (<HOLDING>) ; McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct. Options: A. holding the rule on the scope of per missible searches incident to arrest announced in chimel v california 395 us 752 89 sct 2034 23 led2d 685 not to be retroactive B. holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in gideon v wainwright 372 us 335 83 sct 792 9 led2d 799 to be retroactive C. holding that indigents have a right to a transcript on appeal as announced in griffin v illinois 351 us 12 76 sct 585 100 led 891 to be retroactive D. holding the rule that an accused has a right to counsel at any critical confrontation announced in united states v wade 388 us 218 87 sct 1926 18 led2d 1149 and gilbert v california 388 us 263 87 sct 1951 18 led2d 1178 not to be retroactive E. holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in douglas v california 372 us 353 83 sct 814 9 led2d 811 to be retroactive

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in douglas v california 372 us 353 83 sct 814 9 led2d 811 to be retroactive
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Company, nor any of its affiliates, nor any Person acting on any of their behalf has, directly or indirectly, made any offers or sales of any securities or solicited any offers to buy any securities, under circumstances that would require registration of any of the securities of the Company under the 1933 Act, whether through integration with prior offerings or otherwise, or cause the Acquisition to require approval of stockholders of the Company for purposes of the 1933 Act or under any applicable stockholder approval provisions. Neither the Company, any of its affiliates nor any Person acting on any of their behalf will take any action or steps that would require registration of any of the securities of the Company under the 1933 Act or cause the offer and sale of the 2,900,000 Shares to the Investor to be integrated with other offerings of securities of the Company.

assistant: Integration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, Executive shall have the right, on the same basis as other members of senior management of the Company, to participate in and to receive benefits under any of the Company’s employee benefit plans, insurance programs and/or indemnification agreements, as may be in effect from time to time, subject to any applicable waiting periods and other restrictions. In addition, Executive shall be entitled to the benefits afforded to other members of the senior executive team under the Company’s insurance, vacation, holiday and business expense reimbursement policies. In addition, Executive shall receive a $1,000/month auto allowance.

assistant: Benefits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Company and constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Company, enforceable against the Company in accordance with its terms, except that such enforcement may be subject to (a) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws affecting or relating to enforcement of creditors’ rights generally, and (b) general principles of equity.

assistant: Authorizations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company will not issue the PVU shares if doing so would violate any applicable federal or state securities laws, or any other applicable law or regulation. The Associate may not sell or otherwise dispose of the PVU shares in violation of applicable law.

assistant: Compliance With Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section II.A.1(b), the Restricted Stock Units will vest in three equal installments on the first three anniversaries of the Grant Date (each, a “Vesting Date”), subject to Grantee’s continued status as a Service Provider through each such Vesting Date.

assistant: General
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The rights and remedies with respect to any breach of any representation and warranty made by any Originator or any Lessee pursuant to Article IV , the indemnification provisions of Article VI , and the provisions of Sections 7.4 , 7.5 , 7.6 , 7.8 , 7.9 , 7.10 , 7.11 , 7.12 and 7.14 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Survival