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: This Agreement shall not constitute a binding obligation of the Company or the Participant unless it is accepted by the Participant by ________. Subject to the limitations stated above and in the Plan, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Company and to the Participant’s heirs, legatees, distributees and personal representatives. No handmarked or interlineated modifications shall constitute a part of this Agreement.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: of resistance by the victim and the use of physical force by the perpetrator.” Id. at 932 (citing the BIA’s decision). Accordingly, we held that sexual battery is categorically a crime of violence under § 16(b). In Lisbey, we noted approvingly cases from other circuits which- establish that sexual acts, without the victim’s consent, constitute crimes of violence under § 16(b). See id. at 933 (citing approvingly Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (lewd or lascivious touching of an adult without his or her consent); Sutherland v. Reno, 228 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir.2000) (indecent assault and battery on a person over the age of fourteen which requires the victim’s actual non-consent as an element); United States v. Reyes-Castro, 13 F.3d 377, 379 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>)). These cases, taken together, establish that Options: A. holding that attempted sexual abuse of a child under the age of fourteen is a crime of viqlenee B. holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime C. recognizing the two distinct generic definitions of sexual abuse of a minor and holding that a statute contains the element of abuse under the medinavilla definition if it applies to sexual conduct with children younger than fourteen years D. holding that the florida offense of attempted lewd assault on a child under the age of sixteen is a crime of violence even though the offense might be accomplished without use of physical force E. holding that a conviction under utah code ann 7654041 for sexual abuse of a child was a crime of violence under 16b based upon a common sense view of the sexual abuse statute in combination with the legal determination that children are incapable of consent which suggests that when an older person attempts to sexually touch a child under the age of fourteen there is always a substantial risk that physical force will be used to ensure the childs compliance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that attempted sexual abuse of a child under the age of fourteen is a crime of viqlenee
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 Seller has all requisite corporate power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of the Seller.

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: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof), and effective upon the date of such issuance (or, in the case of any Existing Letter of Credit, on the Effective Date), and without any further action on the part of the applicable Issuing Lender or the U.S. Revolving Lenders, the applicable Issuing Lender hereby grants to each U.S. Revolving Lender, and each U.S. Revolving Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Lender, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such U.S. Revolving Lender’s U.S. Revolving Commitment Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each U.S. Revolving Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the General Administrative Agent, for the account of such Issuing Lender, such U.S. Revolving Lender’s U.S. Revolving Commitment Percentage of each LC Disbursement made by such Issuing Lender and not reimbursed on or before the date due as provided in paragraph (e) of this Section 4.01, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Borrowers for any reason. Each U.S. Revolving Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including any amendment, renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit or the occurrence and continuance of a Default or reduction or termination of the U.S. Revolving Commitments, or any force majeure or other event that under any rule of law or uniform practices to which any Letter of Credit is subject (including Section 3.14 of ISP 98 or any successor publication of the International Chamber of Commerce) permits a drawing to be made under such Letter of Credit after the expiration thereof or of the Commitments, and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

assistant: Participations
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 such time as any LICENSED PRODUCT is being commercially SOLD (other than for the purpose of obtaining [***] ) by LICENSEE, a SUBLICENSEE, or a subsidiary or agent of LICENSEE, LICENSEE shall at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain commercial general liability insurance in amounts not less than [***] dollars ($ [***] ) per incident and naming UNIVERSITY, its Curators, trustees, officers, agents, employees and affiliates, as additional insureds. Such commercial general liability insurance shall provide (a) product liability coverage and (b) broad form contractual liability coverage for LICENSEE's indemnification under this AGREEMENT. Such insurance will be considered primary as to any other valid and collectible insurance, but only as to acts of the named insured. Any carrier providing coverage shall have a minimum "Best" rating of "A-XII". The minimum amounts of insurance coverage required shall not be construed to create a limit of LICENSEE's liability with respect to its indemnification under this AGREEMENT.

assistant: Insurances
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 meaning of “results from” is not clear without further explanation. Before the Supreme Court granted certiorari 'and reversed in Burrage, the Eighth Circuit had affirmed the defendant’s conviction in that case, holding that the district court had not erred in instructing the jury that “results from” meant that the controlled substance must have been a “contributing cause” of the death. Id. at 886. Moreover, in a separate opinion in Burrage, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Soto-mayo'r, explained that she would apply the rule of lenity, a doctrine invoked only where statutory language is ambiguous, in interpreting § 841(b)(1)(C)’s text. See id. at 892 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment); cf. Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) (<HOLDING>). • Thus, even though the Supreme Court has now Options: A. holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines B. holding that the rule of lenity applies only if the provision being construed is still ambiguous after the application of normal rules of construction C. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies not only to interpretations of the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions but also to the penalties they impose D. holding rule of lenity in the penal context to be a rule of last resort E. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies not only to interpretations of the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions but also to the penalties they impose
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: BORROWERS AND LENDER EACH HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF ANY OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN, INCLUDING CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS, BREACH OF DUTY CLAIMS, AND ALL OTHER COMMON LAW OR STATUTORY CLAIMS. BORROWERS AND LENDER REPRESENT THAT EACH HAS REVIEWED THIS WAIVER AND EACH KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ITS JURY TRIAL RIGHTS FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL. IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE FILED AS A WRITTEN CONSENT TO A TRIAL BY THE COURT.

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: contends UTEP retaliated against her for opposing a discriminatory practice, she has failed to allege a retaliation claim. We note that in establishing retaliation based on opposition, an employee must show more than she merely complained to the employer about her treatment. “The employee must put the employer on notice that the employee is opposing practices that the [sic] she believes constitute prohibited discrimination.” Warrick v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., No. 14-13-00938-CV, 2014 WL 7405645, at *7 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Chandler v. CSC Applied Technologies, LLC, 376 S.W.3d 802, 823-24 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (plaintiff did not engage in protected a dence does h Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Moisant v. Air Midwest,.Inc., .291 F.3d 1028, Options: A. holding that investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action B. holding oneday unpaid suspension not an adverse employment action C. holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action D. holding that a suspension with pay and full benefits pending a timely investigation into suspected wrongdoing is not an adverse employment action E. holding that termination is an adverse employment action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a suspension with pay and full benefits pending a timely investigation into suspected wrongdoing is not an adverse employment action
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: 654 (1993) quoting Simmons v. Peoples Bank, 27 B.R. 508, 510 (Bankr. W. D. Va. 1983). See also Ashby v. Dumouchelle, 185 Va. 724 (1946). PRC was clearly chargeable with knowledge of the contents of section 31 long before Slusher executed the Second Amendment to Lease on its behalf. That document was executed well after all of the “interested” AH officers had left the company. At that time, PRC again affirmed the validity of the Cascades West lease and continued to occupy the leased premises for the entirety of the first option term before asserting that the lease was void. PRC argues that the Virginia Code sets out the sole manner in which a related party corporate transaction can be ratified. The Court disagrees. Where, as here, a successor to the origi p., 139 Va. 366, 374 (1924) (<HOLDING>); Webb v. Duvall, 11 A.2d 446, 448 (Md. 1940) Options: A. holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract B. holding that a former minor who had signed a release at age 17 in order to skydive ratified the contract as a matter of law by accepting the benefits of the contract when he used the defendants facilities and further stating that the question whether that former minors subsequent actions constituted disaffirmance of the contract was not relevant because the former minor had already ratified the contract C. 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 D. holding that even though certain corporate formalities had not been complied with in the execution of the subject contract the corporation had knowledge of the existence of the contract and treated it as a valid and binding contract and thus ratified the contract by accepting the benefits thereunder E. holding that party to contract could not with knowledge of the fraud which had been practiced upon him take any benefit under the contract or change the condition of the property and then repudiate the contract because the taking of a benefit is an election to ratify it

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that even though certain corporate formalities had not been complied with in the execution of the subject contract the corporation had knowledge of the existence of the contract and treated it as a valid and binding contract and thus ratified the contract by accepting the benefits thereunder
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: Upon the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate obtaining knowledge thereof, the Borrower will give written notice to the Administrative Agent promptly (and in any event within ten days) of any of the following which would result in or reasonably would be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect: (i) any unfavorable determination letter from the IRS regarding the qualification of a Single Employer Plan under Section 401(a) of the Code (along with a copy thereof), (ii) all notices received by the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate of the PBGC’s intent to terminate any Single Employer Plan or to have a trustee appointed to administer any Single Employer Plan, (iii) with respect to any Multiemployer Plan, the receipt of notice as prescribed in ERISA or otherwise of any withdrawal liability assessed against the Borrower or any of its ERISA Affiliates, or of a determination that any Multiemployer Plan is in reorganization or insolvent (both within the meaning of Title IV of ERISA); or (iv) the Borrower obtaining knowledge or reason to know that the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate has filed or intends to file a notice of intent to terminate any Single Employer Plan under a distress termination within the meaning of Section 4041(c) of ERISA. Promptly upon request, the Borrower shall furnish the Lenders with such additional information concerning any Single Employer Plan as may be reasonably requested, including, but not limited to, copies of each annual report/return (Form 5500 series), as well as all schedules and attachments thereto required to be filed with the Department of Labor and/or the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to ERISA and the Code, respectively, for each “plan year” (within the meaning of Section 3(39) of ERISA).

assistant: Erisa
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 judicial or nonjudicial forfeiture or seizure proceeding is commenced by a government authority and remains pending with respect to any property of any Borrower or any part thereof, on the grounds that the property or any part thereof had been used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense by any person, including any tenant, pursuant to any law, including under the Controlled Substances Act or the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, regardless of whether or not the property shall become subject to forfeiture or seizure in connection therewith, unless any such proceeding is dismissed, stayed or bonded or such property is released therefrom within 90 days after such Borrower receives written notice of any such proceeding.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: for the court to exercise jurisdiction over Dawson-Austin. Austin bought his Dallas home, opened his Texas bank accounts, and brought his Starkey stock certificate to Texas after he separated from Dawson-Austin. We do not believe that one spouse may leave the other, move to another state in which neither has ever lived, buy a home or open a bank account or store a stock certificate there, and by those unilateral actions, and nothing more, compel the other spouse to litigate their divorce in the new domicile consistent with due process. One spouse cannot, solely by actions in which the other spouse is not involved, create the contacts between a state and the other spouse necessary for jurisdiction over a divorce action. See In the Interest of S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 83-84 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Dawson-Austin’s claim to a part of Options: A. holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act B. holding that without personal jurisdiction over one parent a court could still decide custody of a child living in the state but could not determine support and visitation C. holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child D. holding that psychological parent was not entitled to custody or visitation E. holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that without personal jurisdiction over one parent a court could still decide custody of a child living in the state but could not determine support and visitation
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 "the Petitioners.” 3 . The policy originally was with CNA Personal Insurance, the predecessor in interest of Encompass. 4 . The numerical figures were apparently added by the insurance agent, per an instruction on the form. 5 . The General Assembly subsequently increased the minimum coverage amounts to their current levels. Chapter 441, Laws of Maryland 2010 (raising minimum personal injury liability coverage to $30,000 per person up to $60,000 per accident); Chapter 681, Laws of Maryland 1999 (raising minimum property damage coverage to $15,000). 6 . Even if a waiver is executed by the "first named insured,” it is ineffective if the insurer’s notice of the effect of the waiver is deficient. IN § 19-510(c); cf. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Powell, 292 F.3d 201 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, Petitioners apparently Options: A. holding that in order for insured to qualify for uim benefits there must have been a liability policy in effect um coverage does not satisfy this requirement B. holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver C. holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage D. holding um did not act under color of state law when it terminated an employee E. holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage
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 Borrower will use the proceeds of the Loans to fund, in part, the Acquisition and to pay fees and expenses in connection with the Transactions; provided that neither the Administrative Agent nor any Lender shall have any responsibility as to the use of any such proceeds.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 and each other Loan Document has been duly executed and delivered by Parent and each other Loan Party that is party thereto. This Agreement and each other Loan Document constitutes, a legal, valid and binding obligation of (a) Parent, if a party thereto, enforceable against Parent and (b) each other Loan Party that is party thereto, enforceable against such Loan Party, in each case, in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by any applicable bankruptcy, administration, administrative receivership, winding-up, insolvency, reorganization (by way of voluntary arrangement, schemes of arrangement or otherwise), receivership, moratorium or other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and by general principles of equity.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: public education,” sometimes referred to as a “FAPE,” for all children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a) (establishing right to a free appropriate public education); id. § 1400(c) (congressional findings). Known then as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (“EHA”), and today named the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, the law “confers upon disabled students an enforceable substantive right to public education in participating States, and conditions federal financial assistance upon a State’s compliance with the substantive and procedural goals of the Act.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 310, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988) (citation and footnote omitted); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Among the most important of the IDEA’S goals Options: A. holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case B. holding that an individualized educational program that merely provided for educational services as appropriate did not result in the denial of a free appropriate public education C. holding that the eha established right to public education for students with disabilities that consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction D. holding that district of columbia violated due process by denying handicapped students a publicly supported education and suspending or expelling such children from regular schooling or special instruction without a hearing E. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the eha established right to public education for students with disabilities that consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction
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: Shipp told all contractors at the site that Oncor had transformers located on the property and that these transformers “were to be left alone and treated as energ energized electrical transformer was not contemporaneous with Murillo’s injury, it is insufficient to create liability for general negligence. Without evidence of contemporaneous conduct, Murillo’s claim against Oncor is “a nonfeasance theory, based on [Oncor’s] failure to take measures to .make the property safe,” and not an activity “based on affirmative, contemporaneous conduct by [Oncor] that caused the injury.” See Del Lago Partners, 307 S.W.3d at 776. Texas courts have consistently considered similar circumstances under a premises-liability theory. See, e.g., Shell Chem. Co. v. Lamb, 493 S.W.2d 742, 748 (Tex.1973) (<HOLDING>); Shell Oil Co. v. Songer, 710 S.W.2d 615, Options: A. holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor B. holding that a clause making payment by the owner an express condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor was enforceable C. holding that premises owner had no duty to warn electrical subcontractor of potential for electric shock from condition which subcontractor was hired to repair D. holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution E. holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that premises owner had no duty to warn electrical subcontractor of potential for electric shock from condition which subcontractor was hired to repair
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 criminal case involving the forfeiture of such property....”). Third, the cases cited by the Watts Petitioners for the argument that the government may only take by forfeiture property that is owned by Dupree are outdated or distinguishable from this case. To start, United States v. Gilbert, 244 F.3d 888 (11th Cir.2001), and United States v. O’Dell, 247 F.3d 655 (6th Cir.2001), are both premised upon a version of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which predated the enactment of Rule 32.2 in 2000. Under then-Rule 31(e), which no longer exists, some courts, including Gilbert and O’Dell, required the jury to return a special verdict “as to the extent of the interest of the property” to be forfeited by a criminal defendant. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e) (1994); Gilbert, 244 F.3d at 923 (<HOLDING>); see O’Dell, 247 F.3d at 680 (“[W]e must Options: A. holding that jurys verdict was fatally deficient where jury did not find the extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture if any pursuant to rule 31e B. holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense C. holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict D. holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property E. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that jurys verdict was fatally deficient where jury did not find the extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture if any pursuant to rule 31e
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: of a contract as between merchants). We disagree with the court in Klocek that resolution of this issue is controlled by Section 2-207, and instead adopt the position articulated by other courts that Section 2-207 does not apply because it does not address the formation of a contract, and does not specify when additional terms may become part of a contract involving a non-merchant. See M.A. Mortenson Co., 998 P.2d at 312 (interpreting Washington’s version of the UCC, and holding that Section 2-204 addressing contract formation, not Section 2-207 addressing contract alteration, applies to determine whether terms that accompany the shipment of software were part of the contract to purchase the software, and holding that the terms were part of the contract); accord Hill, 105 F.3d at 1150 (<HOLDING>); ProCD, Inc., 86 F.3d at 1452 (applying Options: A. holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law B. holding mutuality of obligation is essential to the formation of a bilateral contract C. recognizing that the question is one of contract formation and holding that section 2207 of texas ucc regarding terms added to an existing contract is irrelevant D. recognizing that courts will not add terms to a contract about which the contract is silent E. 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

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the question is one of contract formation and holding that section 2207 of texas ucc regarding terms added to an existing contract is irrelevant
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 basis for a motion in limine that would prohibit any mention of the hospitalization during the course of another proceeding."); In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 231 S.E.2d 633, 634-35 (1977) (stating evidence of prior commitment order could be used to attack capacity of witness, to impeach witness, to attack character of defendant, and in subsequent commitment proceedings). 16 . In re Walter R., 850 A.2d 346, 349 (Me.2004) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (2000)). 17 . Peter A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 994-95 (Alaska 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). See also id. (discussing other cases where court held issue was not moot based on potential collateral consequences); Martin v. Dieringer, 108 P.3d 234, 236 (Alaska 2005) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. State, 633 P.2d 211, 213 (Alaska Options: A. holding petition to remove personal representative of estate was not moot because findings were used to dismiss related civil suit based on collateral estoppel B. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel C. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims D. holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate E. holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct

assistant: The best answer is A. holding petition to remove personal representative of estate was not moot because findings were used to dismiss related civil suit based on collateral estoppel
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 along with the Offer Letter, Restrictive Covenant Agreement, and the Equity Documents, contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to Executive’s employment and supersedes any prior agreements or understandings (including verbal agreements) between the parties relating to the subject matter of this agreement. There are no restrictions, agreements, promises, warranties, covenants or undertakings between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein other than those expressly set forth herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive shall be covered by the Company’s applicable liability insurance policy and its indemnification provisions for actions taken on behalf of the Company during the course of Executive’s employment. This Agreement may not be altered, modified, or amended except by written instrument signed by the parties that references Section 10(b).

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: This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard for choice-of-law provisions. Executive consents to personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the State of California. References to California will only be included in this Agreement if Executive resides in California at the time Executive’s employment relationship is terminated.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Civ. P. 166a(c) which prohibits the receipt of oral testimony at the summary judgment hearing. This argument lacks merit. The trial court held two distinct hearings: a hearing on the summary judgment on October 9 and a Probate Code hearing on October 19. No violation of Tex.R.Civ. P. 166a(c) occurred. We overrule contestants’ fourth and fifth issues. Sanctions 1. Rule 329b(g) In their final issue on appeal, contestants allege the trial court’s plenary power expired before the sanctions order issued. We consider this jurisdictional challenge in terms of whether the beneficiaries’ filing of a motion for sanctions within the period of the court’s plenary power operated to assail the judgment and thus extend the court’s p , 815 S.W.2d 884, 886-87 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ)(<HOLDING>); Cf. Gomez v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Options: A. holding that a nonpartys motion for new trial and petition for intervention filed after the trial court signed a final judgment did not extend the courts plenary jurisdiction B. holding that appellate timetable is extended by filing postjudgment motion or other instrument that is 1 timely filed and 2 assails the trial courts judgment C. holding that timely filed motion for sanctions which requested an award of over 40000 in attorneys fees requested a substantial change in the judgment D. holding that only a motion seeking a substantive change in a judgment will extend the appellate deadlines and the trial courts plenary power E. holding that a timely filed motion for sanctions which specifically requested modification of judgment extended trial courts plenary power

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a timely filed motion for sanctions which specifically requested modification of judgment extended trial courts plenary power
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: Schedule 3.15 sets forth the name of, and the ownership interest of the Borrower in, each Subsidiary and identifies each Subsidiary that is a Domestic Subsidiary, each that is a Subsidiary Guarantor and each that is a Foreign Subsidiary, in each case as of the Effective Date.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: It is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the state of its organization, and this Agreement is a legal, valid, and binding obligation of such Party, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except as may be limited by applicable laws relating to or limiting creditors’ rights generally (including the Bankruptcy Code) or by equitable principles or a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court and, with respect to the Company, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.

assistant: Enforceability
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 belief that only "[i]f the court finds error” in the procurement process does "it then ex-aminen whether the error was prejudicial to plaintiff.” Info. Tech. and Applications Corp., Inc. v. United States, 51 Fed.Cl. 340, 346 (Fed.Cl.2001) (dismissing the protest after finding no errors in the contested procurement), aff'd, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (affirming dismissal of the protest on the merits, but holding that the Court of Federal Claims’ "approach was erroneous” in failing to examine prejudice before addressing the merits). In other cases, the court has wasted judicial resources adjudicating the merits of a bid protest that the plaintiff never had standing to bring in the first instance. E.g., Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 605, 620 (2000) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 275 F.3d 1366, 1371 (affirming Options: A. holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee B. holding that its plaintiff failed to prove it was prejudiced by defendants actions and dismissing the protest but only after deciding the merits C. holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay D. holding that a protest was invalid either because it was filed the day before customs denied a previous claim for relief or barred by the provision allowing only one protest per entry of merchandise E. holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that its plaintiff failed to prove it was prejudiced by defendants actions and dismissing the protest but only after deciding the merits
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 agrees to pay and reimburse Buyer for all out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by Buyer in connection with the preparation, execution and delivery of this Amendment and all other agreements, instruments or documents related thereto, including, without limitation, the fees and disbursements of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, counsel to Buyer.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Original Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement among the parties regarding the specific subject matter hereof. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Original Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 15 C.R.S. (1990); Orr, 753 P.2d at 1223; Green v. Chaffee Ditch Co., 150 Colo. 91, 106, 371 P.2d 775, 783-84 (1962); City of Colo. Springs v. Yust, 126 Colo. 289, 294, 249 P.2d 151, 153 (1952). This protection extends not only to surface water users but to users of all water tributary to a natural stream, including appropriators of tributary underground water. See §§ 37-92-102(l)(a), -103(11) (incorporating all waters of a natural stream in scope of Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969, and including tributary underground water as a component of a natural stream); see also Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752, 757-58 (Colo.1981) (distinguishing tributary groundwater from designated groundwater); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 334, 228 P.2d 975, 977 (1951) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, this protection extends to Options: A. recognizing presumption that all groundwater is tributary and subject to prior appropriation doctrine as part of the waters of the stream B. recognizing a connection between surface and groundwater even where the water table falls below the stream bed C. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters D. holding that waters in utah are of two classes private and public and title to public waters is in the public all are equal owners that is have coequal rights therein E. recognizing doctrine

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing presumption that all groundwater is tributary and subject to prior appropriation doctrine as part of the waters of the stream
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the Company and the Consultant with respect to the transactions contemplated herein. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by an instrument in writing and signed by all the parties hereto. Any waiver of the terms and conditions of this Agreement must be in writing signed by all the parties hereto and any such waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms and conditions of this Agreement.

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 and the arbitrator will keep confidential, and will not disclose to any person, except the parties' advisors and legal representatives, or as may be required by law or to enforce in court an arbitrator's award, the existence of any controversy under this Section 11, the referral of any such controversy to arbitration or the status or resolution thereof.

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: claim is one way a complaint can establish the necessary indicia of reliability that a false claim was actually submitted. See, e.g., Hopper, 588 F.3d at 1326; Atkins, 470 F.3d at 1358. However, there is no per se rule that an FCA complaint must provide exact billing data or attach a representative sample claim. See Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1312 & n. 21 (listing some of the types of information that might help a plaintiff plead the submission of a claim with particularity but cautioning that Rule 9(b) “does not mandate all of this information for any of the alleged claims”); see also Durham v. Bus. Mgmt. Assocs., 847 F.2d 1505, 1512 (11th Cir.1 hand knowledge of the defendants’ billing practices is unlikely to have a sufficient basis for such an allegation. See Atkins, 470 F.3d at 1359 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, a corporate outsider likely Options: A. holding that rule 9b applies to fca B. holding that rule 9b was satisfied where the relator was a nurse practitioner in the defendants employ whose conversations about the defendants billing practices with the defendants office manager formed the basis for the relators belief that claims were actually submitted to the government C. holding that rule 9b was not satisfied where the relator was a doctor who did not allege firsthand knowledge of the hospitals submission of false claims D. holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act E. holding that relators failure to meet the particularity requirements of rule 9b did not bar his claim where the relator was a former employee of the defendants and lacked access to records and documents in the possession of the defendants that contained information necessary to plead with particularity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that rule 9b was not satisfied where the relator was a doctor who did not allege firsthand knowledge of the hospitals submission of false claims