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 headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Section, subsection, preamble, recital and party references are to this Agreement unless otherwise stated. No party or its counsel shall be deemed the drafter of this Agreement for purposes of construing its provisions, and all language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. The parties waive any rule of law or judicial precedent that provides that contractual ambiguities are to be construed against the party who shall have drafted the contractual provision in question.

assistant: Interpretations
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: (a) In consideration of Conduit Assignee’s payment of $[_______] to (or at the direction of) Conduit Assignor, which amount equals the aggregate outstanding principal of the assigned Loans owing to Conduit Assignor as of the date hereof under the Agreement (the “ Assignment Price ”), Conduit Assignor hereby sells and assigns to Conduit Assignee, without recourse and (except as set forth in Section 2) without representation or warranty, and Conduit Assignee hereby purchases and accepts from Conduit Assignor, all of Conduit Assignor’s right, title and interest in, to and under such assigned Loans owing to Conduit Assignor on the date hereof, together with a proportionate share of Conduit Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Collateral and all of Conduit Assignor’s rights under the Agreement and the other Transaction Document.

assistant: Assignments
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: Ohio legislation was unconstitutionally retroactive when applied to cases pending before the legislation’s effective date. See Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co., Lawrence No. 05CA46, 2006 WL 3861073, at *9, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 7047, at *26-27 (Ohio Ct.App.2006), review granted, 113 Ohio St.3d 1465, 864 N.E.2d 652 (2007); Wagner v. Anchor Packing Co., Lawrence No. 05CA47, 2006 WL 3861077, at *4, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 7050, at *11-12 (Ohio Ct.App.2006) (same, but noting that legislation itself is not unconstitutionally retroactive because it gives courts discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether application to claims pending prior to the statute’s effective date would be unconstitutionally retroactive); cf. Wilson v. AC & S, Inc., 169 Ohio App.3d 720, 864 N.E.2d 682, 695 (2006) (<HOLDING>), appeal dism’d, 113 Ohio St.3d 1457, 864 Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a permanent nuisance action for injury to property because none of the plaintiffs were the owners of the land when the cause of action accrued with the first injury B. holding that a plaintiffs claims arise under the statute that provides the federal cause of action he or she alleges C. holding that cause of action for asbestosis accrues upon discovery of disease not at time of exposure to asbestos D. holding under facts presented that new statute could be applied to plaintiffs case because she was still able to pursue cause of action for injury caused by husbands exposure to asbestos E. holding that new statute which required proof that asbestos exposure was substantial contributing factor to claimants medical condition could be applied to pending cases and did not abrogate claimants vested right because she was still able to pursue her cause of action and recover for injury caused by her husbands exposure to asbestos statute merely affected methods and procedure by which that action was recognized protected and enforced not the cause of action itself

assistant: The best answer is D. holding under facts presented that new statute could be applied to plaintiffs case because she was still able to pursue cause of action for injury caused by husbands exposure to asbestos
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: Except as otherwise specified herein or if the context may otherwise require, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of the date hereof (the “ Sale and Servicing Agreement ”), by and among Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-A Owner Trust, as issuer, and U.S. Bank National Association, as indenture trustee (the “ Indenture Trustee ”).

assistant: Definitions
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: care provider failed to supply adequate information to obtain the informed consent of the injured person, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the treatment, procedure, or surgery was performed in other than an emergency situation and that the medical care provider did not supply the type of information regarding the treatment, procedure, or surgery as would customarily have been given to a patient in the position of the injured person or other persons authorized to give consent for such a patient by other medical care providers with similar training and experience at the time of the treatment, procedure, or surgery in the locality in which the medical care provider practices or in a similar locality.”); Fuller v. Starnes, 268 Ark. 476, 597 S.W.2d 88, 89-90 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. Options: A. holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases B. holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty C. holding expert testimony is always required for medical negligence cases involving informed consent because physicians duty of disclosure is measured by customary disclosures in practicing community D. holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases E. holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious

assistant: The best answer is C. holding expert testimony is always required for medical negligence cases involving informed consent because physicians duty of disclosure is measured by customary disclosures in practicing community
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: Mr. Pons agrees that he will neither, directly or indirectly, engage in any conduct or make any statements disparaging or criticizing in any way the Company, HC2 or any of their respective affiliates, or any of their personnel nor, directly or indirectly, engage in any other conduct or make any other statement that could be reasonably expected to impair the goodwill of the Company, HC2 or any of their affiliates, the reputation of the Company, HC2 or any of their affiliates, except to the extent required by law, and then only after consultation with the Company to the extent possible, or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. It is understood that by the parties that the general release and the covenants in Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof are essential consideration for this Agreement and an award of damages may be made for violation thereof. Any such award will not affect the enforceability of the general release of all claims by Mr. Pons.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: Each Subordinated Creditor shall execute, acknowledge, deliver, file, notarize, and register at its own expense all such further agreements, instruments, certificates, financing statements, documents, and assurances, and perform such acts as the Agent reasonably shall deem necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement, and promptly provide the Agent with evidence of the foregoing reasonably satisfactory in form and substance to Agent.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: satisfy the requirements of Due Process. See, Rule 7(c)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (stating that an Indictment “shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged”). Id. The Government disagrees with the Defendant’s contention that the Indictment is unconstitutionally vague, and argues that the Defendant’s conduct satisfies the elements of Section 2250(a)(2)(A), since he is a sex offender by reason of a conviction under Federal law, as defined by SORNA, see, Complaint, Docket No. 1, Affidavit of Moran, at ¶ 7, and that that allegation, alone, provides the Defendant with adequate notice of the crime with which he is being charged. See, United States v. Templeton, 2007 WL 445481 at *3 (W.D.Okla., February 7, 2007)(<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the Government argues Options: A. holding that an indictment was sufficient where it failed to specify which subsection of sorna defendants conviction allegedly meets B. holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient C. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense D. holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment E. holding that an indictment which cites the pertinent statute and uses its language will be sufficient to support a conviction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an indictment was sufficient where it failed to specify which subsection of sorna defendants conviction allegedly meets
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 the fullest extent permitted by law, Borrower and Lender HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY in any action, proceeding and/or hearing on any matter whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, the Note, the Security Instrument, the Parking Parcels Security Instrument, or any of the other Loan Documents, or the enforcement of any remedy under any law, statute, or regulation. Neither party will seek to consolidate any such action in which a jury has been waived, with any other action in which a jury trial cannot or has not been waived. Each party has received the advice of counsel with respect to this waiver.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 issue shortly, but we turn first to the issue of whether the contract provision at issue was sufficiently clear to absolve the Yacht Club of liability for its own negligence, for it is universally agreed that exculpatory clauses, whether fully exonerating a party from its own negligence or not, must “be clearly and unequivocally expressed.” Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 13 F.3d 888, 905 (5th Cir.1994) (internal quotations omitted). See also Edward Leasing Corp. v. Uhlig & Assocs., Inc., 785 F.2d 877, 889 (11th Cir.1986) (recognizing that courts will enforce red letter clauses if “the contractual language at issue is clear and unequivocal and clearly indicates the intentions of the parties”); M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Const. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1488 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). A. Is the Exculpatory Clause Sufficiently Options: A. holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear B. holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties C. holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract D. holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent E. holding that extrinsic evidence admissible to determine intent of parties

assistant: The best answer is A. holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear
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: At the Closing, the Company shall reimburse Buyer for expenses incurred by them in connection with the negotiation, preparation, execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other agreements to be executed in connection herewith (“Documents”), including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and expenses, transfer agent fees, fees for stock quotation services, fees relating to any amendments or modifications of the Documents or any consents or waivers of provisions in the Documents, fees for the preparation of opinions of counsel, escrow fees, and costs of restructuring the transactions contemplated by the Documents. When possible, the Company must pay these fees directly, otherwise the Company must make immediate payment for reimbursement to the Buyer for all fees and expenses immediately upon written notice by the Buyer or the submission of an invoice by the Buyer. The Company’s obligation with respect to this transaction is to reimburse Buyer’s expenses shall be and may not exceed $2,000 in legal fees and $2,000 to Brighton Capital Ltd., which shall be deducted from the Note when funded.

assistant: Expenses
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: Bank’s home office was in Delaware, Lehman Bank’s principal place of business also had to be in Delaware, It is true that we are construing the phrase “principal place of business” under New York law, not federal law. Invoking New York law, Lehman Holdings argues that a fact issue exists, pointing to evidence that most of Lehman Bank’s executive officers were in New York and that the board of directors met most frequently in New York. In other circumstances, the location of the principal place of business might raise a fact issue under New York law. But for federally chartered ■ savings and loan associations, the term “principal place of business” is a term of art heavily influenced by federal regulations. See Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB v. State Bank Comm’r, 937 A.2d 95, 103 (Del.2007) (<HOLDING>); accord Cortes v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d Options: A. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york B. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york C. holding that lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york based in part on lehman banks establishment of its home office in delaware D. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership E. holding that even though lehman banks executive officers were in new york and its board of directors met exclusively in new york lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york because the term principal office is a term of art

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that even though lehman banks executive officers were in new york and its board of directors met exclusively in new york lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york because the term principal office is a term of art
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: the premises when he has reason to suspect defects existing at the time of the taking of the tenancy and to either repair them or warn the tenant of their existence. [Footnote omitted.] In other words he is under the duty to take those precautions for the safety of the tenant as would be taken by a reasonably prudent man under similar circumstances. Cummings v. Prater, 95 Ariz. 20, 26, 386 P.2d 27, 31 (1963); see also McLeod v. Newcomer, 163 Ariz. 6, 8, 785 P.2d 575, 577 (App.1989); Udy v. Calvary Corp., 162 Ariz. 7, 11-12, 780 P.2d 1055, 1059-60 (App.1989); Presson v. Mountain States Properties, Inc., 18 Ariz.App. 176, 178-79, 501 P.2d 17, 19-20 (1972); but see W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 63, at 434-435 (5th ed.1984) (hereinafter “Prosser & Keeton”) (<HOLDING>). In Udy, Judge Jacobson concisely explained Options: A. recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question B. holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant C. holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property D. recognizing that it is a wellestablished rule that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord existing at the commencement of the tenancy E. recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises
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: appeal”). Because of that conclusion, we do not reach the issue whether the Right-to-Know Law requires the responsible official to provide summaries or statistical analyses of government documents. Similarly, because we remand this case to the trial court to conduct the comm 89). Accordingly, the general rule is that public agencies are not required to produce new information even if the documents available under the Right-to-Know Law and the common law are unresponsive to a citizen’s inquiry. Nevertheless, we note that rigid adherence to that general rule might not necessarily be appropriate in all cases, and observe that the Appellate Division has ruled to that effect in Board of Education v. New Jersey Department of the Treasury, 279 N.J.Super. 489, 500, 502, 653 A.2d 589 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), leave to appeal granted, 142 N.J. 440, 663 Options: A. holding that claimsinformation data for specific municipality or state agency constituted public records under righttoknow law and common law even though such data was not grouped by municipality or agency but rather was compiled into two groups state and local B. holding that the state police is a state agency C. holding that various data tapes were owned or obtained by the agency even though they were neither created by agency employees nor currently located on agency property because the firm that created the tapes acted on behalf of the agency in creating the tapes D. holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency E. holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that claimsinformation data for specific municipality or state agency constituted public records under righttoknow law and common law even though such data was not grouped by municipality or agency but rather was compiled into two groups state and local
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: as here, where officers were attempting to handcuff an individual who had been resistant. See Rodriguez v. Farrell, 294 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir.2002) (finding no excessive force, and noting that an officer need not credit an arrestee’s claims of pain, especially when the arrestee is in the process of being handcuffed); Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650-53 (9th Cir.2001) (finding no excessive force where plaintiff suffered a fractured finger after officer pushed plaintiff to the ground for purpose of handcuffing her despite being told of preexisting back and shoulder injuries, and where plaintiff had earlier posed a threat to officers’ safety and ability to control a crowd); Huang v. Harris County, No. 00-20806, 2001 WL 822534, at *10 (5th Cir. June 22, 2001) (<HOLDING>); Brownell v. Figel, 950 F.2d 1285, 1288, 1293 Options: A. holding that force was reasonable where officer broke resisting arrestees thumb by twisting her wrist in an effort to prevent her from kicking him and place her in handcuffs B. holding that conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive where the female plaintiffs supervisor frequently tried to get plaintiff to date him using many direct as well as indirect propositions for sex including following her into the restroom repeated attempts to touch her breasts place his hands down her pants and pull off her pants and enlisting the assistance of others to hold her while he attempted to grope her C. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment D. holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim E. holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that force was reasonable where officer broke resisting arrestees thumb by twisting her wrist in an effort to prevent her from kicking him and place her in handcuffs
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: Each party’s obligations under this Section 3.11 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of the Commitment and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all obligations under any Loan Document.

assistant: Survival
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: appear as a result of the offense committed by the defendant. Fujimoto interprets Section 557.041 as restricting who may testify, and argues the plea court erred in allowing Wright and Hanrahan to testify because they fall outside of the permitted class of witnesses. Fujimoto additionally claims the plea court erred by allowing Hanrahan to characterize Fujimoto as a “predator” in her testimony. Fujimoto argues that such testimony was not relevant and was unduly prejudicial because the State was not seeking sexual predator status. ' It is well settled that Section 557.041 is intended to guarantee the right of victims to testify at a sentencing hearing and does not limit testimony from other witnesses the court deems appropriate. See Sharp v. State, 908 S.W.2d 752, 756 (Mo.App. E.D.1995)(<HOLDING>); Figgins v. State, 858 S.W.2d 853, 856 Options: A. holding statute does not prohibit victim from making a specific sentencing recommendation B. holding that erroneous use of statutorily unqualified person to prepare posttrial recommendation requires new recommendation and action C. holding a specific sentencing statute controls over the general sentencing provisions of section 9031 D. holding that presentencing waiver did not prevent appeals from the punishment phase of trial because without a sentencing recommendation the waivers consequences could not be known and the appellant neither bargained for a sentencing recommendation nor waived his right to appeal after sentencing E. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding statute does not prohibit victim from making a specific sentencing recommendation
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: faulty workmanship itself.” Thus, I find the definition in Act No. 26 is indistinguishable from those espoused by this Court in L-J, Newman, and Crossmann. Because Act No. 26 merely clarifies rather than changes existing law, it does not operate retrospectively even though it is applied to transactions predating its enactment. Thus, I conclude the retroactive application of the Act does not render it unconstitutional as a retrospective law. See Segars v. Gomez, 360 F.Supp. 50, 53 (D.S.C.1972) (discussing retroactivity and recognizing that the General Assembly “may ratify and validate any past act which it could originally have authorized provided it still has the power to authorize it, and its authorization does not impair vested rights”); Moore v. Stills, 307 S.W.3d 71, 81 (Ky.2010) (<HOLDING>). b. Existing Contracts Even if Act No. 26 is Options: A. holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to 1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and 1981 B. recognizing that statutory amendments that clarify existing law or codify judicial precedent do not come within the rule against retroactive legislation as such amendments do not impair rights a party possessed when he or she acted or give past conduct or transactions new substantive legal consequences C. holding that similar doj guidelines not mandated by statute or the constitution do not confer substantive rights on any party D. holding that issues that do not apply to retroactive guidelines amendments are not cognizable under 3582c2 E. holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that statutory amendments that clarify existing law or codify judicial precedent do not come within the rule against retroactive legislation as such amendments do not impair rights a party possessed when he or she acted or give past conduct or transactions new substantive legal consequences
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: 5th DCA 2002)(recognizing that the determination of whether an offer of judgment was served in good faith turns entirely on whether the offeror Mortgage’s notice of voluntary dismissal with out prejudice, Ormond Beach lost its right to request recovery of such fees. To hold otherwise would preclude the filing of a voluntary dismissal in all cases in which a defendant had filed an offer of judgment. AFFIRMED. COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur. 1 . The bankruptcy court disallowed all of Citation’s claims against Ormond Beach. See In Re: Ormond Beach Assocs., Ltd. Partnership, 204 B.R. 336 (Bankr.D.Conn.1996). That decision was affirmed on appeal. See In Re: Ormond Beach Assocs., Ltd. Partnership, 184 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.1999). 2 . See MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So.2d 640 Options: A. holding attorney fees not allowable as costs B. holding a summary judgment to be final although motion to assess attorney fees remained pending because award of attorney fees is collateral to judgment C. holding that offer of judgment statute does not provide a basis for an award of attorney fees and costs unless dismissal is with prejudice D. holding proper basis for award of fees E. recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that offer of judgment statute does not provide a basis for an award of attorney fees and costs unless dismissal is with prejudice
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: upon your acceptance of these terms and submission of your order , you hereby agree that linden lab or an applicable payment service provider ( collectively , for purposes of this section 4.3 , `` we '' ) have the right to automatically charge your credit card or debit your account ( or other payment method ) for the applicable fees or charges , plus any applicable taxes that we are required to collect , and you authorize us to do so .

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: For a period of seven (7) years following the Closing, H/Cell shall retain the books and records of Pride, and upon reasonable notice, afford the officers, employees, agents and representatives of the Pride Shareholders reasonable access (including the right to make photocopies, at the expense of the Pride Shareholders), during normal business hours, to such books and records.

assistant: Records
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 Purchaser covenants that neither it nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any purchases or sales, including Short Sales of any of the Company’s securities during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending on the date when this Agreement is publicly disclosed by the Company. The Purchaser also covenants that until such time as the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed by the Company, the Purchaser will maintain the confidentiality of the existence and terms of this transaction.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: difference in injury to INP’s property is not one of degree, it is one of kind. INP demonstrated that the building’s special design made its increased-proximity injury peculiar to its property and thus the increased-proximity damages are special not community. See Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 781. We therefore hold that the court of appeals erred in determining that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about these damages. B. Damages foe Unsafe Access and the Cost to Cure The State argues that the trial court erred by finding that INP’s remainder property suffered a material and substantial impairment of access as a matter of law because reasonable access to the property remained after the condemnation. See Archenhold Auto. Supply Co. v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.1965) (<HOLDING>); DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103, 110 Options: A. holding first amendment guarantees access to criminal trials and limitations on access are subject to strict scrutiny B. holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains C. holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice D. holding that limitation of access is accomplished under states police power and is not compensable E. holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains
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 RSU Agreement and the Award evidenced hereby are made and granted pursuant to the Plan and are in all respects limited by and subject to the terms of the Plan. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this RSU Agreement and the Plan, the terms of the Plan shall apply. All decisions of the Committee with respect to any question or issue arising under the Plan or this RSU Agreement shall be conclusive and binding on all persons having an interest in the RSU.

assistant: Construction
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: 12-C-6403, 2014 WL 804458, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 28, 2014). Courts in the minority recognizing this duty find generic consumers’ injurious reliance foreseeable; brand manufacturers know or should know that a significant number of patients whose doctors rely on their product information for brand name drugs are likely to have generic drugs dispensed to them. Applying Kentucky law in Smith, 657 F.3d at 424 and Tennessee law in Barnes v. Kerr Corp., 418 F.3d 583, 588-89 (6th Cir.2005), this Court concluded that generic consumers in those states could not maintain an action against brand manufacturers, in line with the majority of courts nationwide. Every circuit court of appeals that has addressed the issue is in accord. See Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1282 (10th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1251 Options: A. holding that real estate agents owe their clients a duty of loyalty B. holding that a brand manufacturer of prescription drugs cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by consumers who ingested only the generic form of a drug under florida law C. holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law D. holding name brand manufacturers may be held liable by consumers of generic drugs for representations made to prescribing physicians under vermont law E. holding that officers owe a duty to the public to detect and investigate crime but owe no duty to individuals for negligent investigation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law
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: important notice : for u.s. and canadian players , disputes about these terms or relating to zynga services generally must be resolved by binding arbitration and on an individual basis only .

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: No Loan Party nor any Subsidiary of a Loan Party is in violation of any Anti-Terrorism Law or engages in or conspires to engage in any transaction that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in any Anti-Terrorism Law.

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: Each Party shall perform all further acts reasonably requested by the other to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement, including obtaining the Certifications under Section 6 or obtaining purchase data necessary from third parties to calculate any amounts payable pursuant to Exhibit A .

assistant: Further Assurances
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 initial term of this Agreement will begin on the Effective Date and will continue until the third (3rd) anniversary of the Effective Date (the “Initial Term”) or, if sooner, until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 5(b). If this Agreement continues in effect until the third (3rd) anniversary of the Effective Date, it will thereafter automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each, a “Renewal Term”) unless either party gives written notice of non-renewal to the other at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term or this Agreement is otherwise terminated as provided herein. Should Employee continue in his position or any other position after expiration of the Initial Term (if there is no Renewal Term) or after any Renewal Term (if there is no subsequent Renewal Term), he will thereafter become an employee “at will” subject to the policies and procedures of the Company as applicable to all employees until such time as the parties enter into a written agreement modifying Employee’s “at-will” employment.

assistant: Terms
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 part and aff’d in part on rehearing, 214 Miss. 569, 59 So.2d 294 (1952)). 37 . Tanks, 332 F.Supp.2d at 964 & 964 n. 14. 38 . Id. 39 . Williams, 683 F.2d at 939; Big "2” Engine Rebuilders, 379 So.2d at 891. 40 . Tanks also argues that we should affirm the district court’s ruling because she may be able to demonstrate that Lockheed intended for Willis’s injury to happen, and that this intent of the employer is sufficient to remove the case from the exclusivity bar of the MWCA. The Mississippi Supreme Court has never held that an employer, even with actual notice of a third party’s intent to harm an employee, is strictly liable for the acts of that third party on the employer’s premises outside the confines of the MWCA. See Newell v. S. Jitney Jungle Co., 830 So.2d 621, 624 (Miss.2002)(<HOLDING>). 41 . The federal discrimination claims first Options: A. holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness B. holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury C. holding employer not liable to employee shot at work by her husband despite actual notice to the employer of the estranged husbands threats to harm the employee as the court refused to impose strict liability on businesses for injuries inflicted by third parties on employees D. holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits E. holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration

assistant: The best answer is C. holding employer not liable to employee shot at work by her husband despite actual notice to the employer of the estranged husbands threats to harm the employee as the court refused to impose strict liability on businesses for injuries inflicted by third parties on employees
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: to the Petitioning Creditor. Despite this acknowledgement, this Court finds the Instant Memo to be insufficient to prove the existence of an enforceable contract because it makes no reference to the essential terms of whatever loan agreement that may exist between the parties. Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529, 534 (Pa.Super.2009) (recognizing that when a party seeks to enforce an oral agreement, the party must establish the essential terms and conditions of the alleged agreement); CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1058 (Pa.Super.1999) (stating that a party must establish the essential terms of a contract in order to state a claim for breach of contract); Estate of Rodgers v. Morris Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, No. 04-1577, 2005 WL 3602536 (Pa.Ct.Com.Pl. Dec. 14, 2005) (<HOLDING>). For example, the Instant Memo makes no Options: A. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract 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 defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract D. holding summary dismissal of breach of implied employment contract claim inappropriate where factual issue over existence of oral policy E. holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim
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: Terms not defined in this Agreement shall have the meanings assigned thereto in Appendix A to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of the date hereof (as from time to time amended, supplemented or otherwise modified and in effect, the “ Sale and Servicing Agreement ”) among the Purchaser, as seller, Honda Auto Receivables 2017-3 Owner Trust, as Issuer, and the RPA Seller, as Servicer and Sponsor.

assistant: Definitions
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: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in Nashville, Tennessee in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon any proper award rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. There shall be three arbitrators, one to be chosen directly by each party at will, and the third arbitrator to be selected by the two arbitrators so chosen. To the extent permitted by the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, the selected arbitrators may grant equitable relief. The cost of the arbitration, including the cost of the record or transcripts thereof, if any, administrative fees, and all other fees shall be borne by Corporation. Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.1 with respect to events following a Change in Control, to the extent that Officer prevails with respect to any portion of an arbitration award, Officer shall be reimbursed by Corporation for the costs and expenses incurred by Officer, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection with the arbitration in an amount proportionate to the award to Officer as compared to the amount in dispute.

assistant: Arbitration
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: we wo n't provide notice before termination where : ( a ) you 're in material breach of these terms , ( b ) doing so would cause us legal liability or compromise our ability to provide the services to our other users , or ( c ) we 're prohibited from doing so by law .

assistant: Unilateral termination