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: EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT THAT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE OR DEFEND ANY RIGHTS UNDER OR RELATING TO THIS WAIVER, ANY LOAN DOCUMENTS OR ANY AMENDMENT, INSTRUMENT, DOCUMENT, OR AGREEMENT DELIVERED OR THAT MAY IN THE FUTURE BE DELIVERED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR THEREWITH OR ARISING FROM ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENTS (WHETHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN), ACTIONS OF ANY OF THE PARTIES HERETO, OR ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP EXISTING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS WAIVER OR ANY LOAN DOCUMENTS, AND AGREES THAT ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE TRIED BEFORE A COURT AND NOT BEFORE A JURY. EACH PARTY HERETO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS BEEN, OR HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE, REPRESENTED IN THE SIGNING OF THIS WAIVER AND IN THE MAKING OF THIS WAIVER BY INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL SELECTED OF ITS OWN FREE WILL, AND THAT IT HAS DISCUSSED THIS WAIVER WITH SUCH LEGAL COUNSEL. EACH PARTY HERETO FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING OF 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: the property remained marital property until there was a court-ordered dissolution or a “valid written agreement” of the parties. Preston v. Preston, 189 S.W.3d 685, 688-89 (Mo.App. W.D.2006). There was no valid written agreement and a physical division of the property was not binding upon the court. The court was not obligated to credit Husband with any amount, thus, it was not error to subtract any sum from the amount Husband was to pay Wife prior to the equalization award. Husband has not contended that the overall property distribution was inequitable. See In re Marriage of Altergott, 259 S.W.3d 608, 620-21 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (finding calculation error from misapplication of the law was not prejudicial to husband); Calhoun v. Calhoun, 156 S.W.3d 410, 416-18 (Mo.App. S.D.2005)(<HOLDING>). Point V is denied. The judgment is affirmed. Options: A. holding trial court erred in finding purported wife unavailable to testify and admitting her sworn prior statements in lieu of her live testimony where record did not support courts ruling in light of its own finding that remarriage of wife and defendant was fraudulent and wife did not refuse to testify if claim of privilege was denied B. holding that the trial court did not err in its refusal to consider the borrowers defense of merger on appeal since the defense was outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court C. holding wife was not prejudiced by the trial courts refusal to consider the tax consequences of assets awarded to her in part because it did not affect the overall property distribution D. holding that because the wife failed to present any evidence as to the legal services performed in the trial court the wife was not entitled to a second hearing to establish attorneys fees E. holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wifes jewelry at 10000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husbands unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife

assistant: The best answer is C. holding wife was not prejudiced by the trial courts refusal to consider the tax consequences of assets awarded to her in part because it did not affect the overall property distribution
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 provision of this Agreement may be modified, waived or discharged unless such waiver, modification or discharge is agreed to in writing signed by the Employee and the CEO. No waiver by either party hereto at any time of any breach by the other party hereto of, or compliance with, any condition or provision of this Agreement to be performed by such other party shall be deemed a waiver of similar or dissimilar provisions or conditions at the same or at any prior or subsequent time. No agreements or representations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, with respect to the subject matter hereof have been made by either party, which are not set forth expressly in this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Company, and its successors and assigns, and upon the Employee. The obligations of the Employee shall not be assignable or otherwise transferable.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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 issued and outstanding securities of the Company as of September 30, 2016 are as set forth in the Subscription Booklet. Except as set forth in the Subscription Booklet , as of October 12, 2016 there are no outstanding agreements or preemptive or similar rights affecting the Company’s Common Stock and no outstanding rights, warrants or options to acquire, or instruments convertible into or exchangeable for, or agreements or understandings with respect to the sale or issuance of any Common Stock of the Company.

assistant: Capitalization
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: permissible exercises of her First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We reach a different conclusion. In general, Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law does not implicate the First Amendment because it is directed at conduct, not speech. See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 456, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978) (suggesting that the government’s regulation of the practice of law is a regulation of conduct, not speech); S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Sup.Ct. of La., 252 F.3d 781, 789 (5th Cir.2001) (finding that state prohibition on unlicensed students practicing law in state courts did not regulate speech); Drew v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 970 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Tex.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); Fla. Bar v. Furman, 376 So.2d 378, 379 Options: A. holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment B. holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment C. holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction D. holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code E. holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and any Subsidiary is authorized to withhold from any Award granted, or any payment relating to an Award under this Plan, including from a distribution of Stock, amounts of withholding and other taxes due or potentially payable in connection with any transaction involving an Award, and to take such other action as the Committee may deem advisable to enable the Company and Participants to satisfy obligations for the payment of withholding taxes and other tax obligations relating to any Award. The Committee shall determine, in its sole discretion, the form of payment acceptable for such tax withholding obligations, including, without limitation, the delivery of cash or cash equivalents, Stock (including previously owned shares, net settlement, a broker-assisted sale, or other cashless withholding or reduction of the amount of shares otherwise issuable or delivered pursuant to the Award), other property, or any other legal consideration the Committee deems appropriate. Any determination made by the Committee to allow a Participant who is subject to Rule 16b-3 to pay taxes with shares of Stock through net settlement or previously owned shares shall be approved by a committee made up of two or more Qualified Members or the full Board. If tax obligations are satisfied through the withholding of shares of Stock that are otherwise issuable to the Participant pursuant to an Award (or through the surrender of shares of Stock by the Participant to the Company), the maximum number of shares of Stock that may be so withheld (or surrendered) shall be the number of shares of Stock that have an aggregate Fair Market Value on the date of withholding or repurchase equal to the aggregate amount of such tax liabilities determined based on the greatest withholding rates for federal, state, foreign and/or local tax purposes, including payroll taxes, that may be utilized without creating adverse accounting treatment with respect to such Award, as determined by the Committee.

assistant: Taxes
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 extent that any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered deleted hereof and the remainder of such provision and of this Agreement shall be unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive shall not be eligible to earn, and shall not earn, paid vacation or any other paid time off. Rather, the Company expects the CEO to determine for himself, consistent with his responsibilities, how much time can reasonably be spent away from the office for purposes such as personal vacation, relaxation, or personal or family needs. Executive, at his discretion, shall be entitled to take leave from work as he deems appropriate and as is consistent, in the judgment of the Board of Directors, with his ability to perform the necessary and appropriate tasks required by his job as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Section 6.6(a) and the first sentence of 6.6(b) of the Existing Loan Agreement are hereby modified to provide that the Guarantor will furnish such Financial Statements and Reports pursuant to the terms of the Guaranty Agreement.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: judges would have refused to consider the appeal on procedural grounds.) However, regardless of whether a defendant has a constitutional right to have counsel present at the government’s examinations, the court has the discretion to order that a defense representative be allowed to attend or that the testing be recorded. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.2(c)(1)(B) (“court may ... order the defendant to be examined under procedures ordered by the court”); United States v. Kaczynski, 1997 WL 668395, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 22, 1997) (denying government request to videotape government experts’ examinations, but allowing examinations to be audio-taped and permitting defense counsel to monitor examinations via live audio or video feed); Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 426 Mass. 105, 686 N.E.2d 1001, 1005 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The court’s exercise of its discretion may be Options: A. holding that while sixth amendment does not categorically demand that defense counsel be allowed to attend or videotape government testing court has discretion to allow either procedure B. holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel C. recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel D. holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial E. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while sixth amendment does not categorically demand that defense counsel be allowed to attend or videotape government testing court has discretion to allow either procedure
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: Grantee shall bear Grantee’s pro rata share (based upon the amount of consideration to be received) of the reasonable costs of any sale of Shares pursuant to an Approved Sale to the extent such costs are incurred for the benefit of all selling stockholders of the Company and are not otherwise paid by the Company or the acquiring party. Costs incurred by Grantee on Grantee’s own behalf shall not be considered costs of the transaction hereunder.

assistant: Costs
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 may be required by applicable law or regulation (but only after using reasonable best efforts to give the MD Stockholders and the SLP Stockholders an opportunity to review and comment), no Stockholder shall make any public announcement regarding, or filings with respect to, the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement without the prior written consent of the MD Stockholders and the SLP Stockholders.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company, at this time, has no knowledge of any facts or circumstances which lead it to believe that it will file for reorganization or liquidation under the bankruptcy or reorganization laws of any jurisdiction within one year from the applicable Closing Date.

assistant: Solvency
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 Loan Party will maintain with financially sound and reputable insurance companies insurance on all Inventory in such amounts and covering such risks as is customary for companies engaging in the same or similar businesses and owning similar properties in the localities where the Loan Parties operate, or to the customary extent Borrower may be self-insured.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: it is instagram 's policy not to accept or consider content , information , ideas , suggestions or other materials other than those we have specifically requested and to which certain specific terms , conditions and requirements may apply .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a tenant’s right of possession and enjoyment of the leased premises is interfered with by the landlord ... as to render the premises, or a part thereof, unsuitable for the purposes intended.” Brugger v. Fonoti, 645 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah 1982). In order for a constructive eviction to occur, a tenant must abandon the premises within a reasonable time following the landlord’s interference. See id. (citing Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 123 Utah 70, 254 P.2d 847 (1953)). “[T]he whole point of ‘constructive eviction’ is that the landlord basically drove the tenant out through the landlord’s action or inaction.” Kenyon v. Regan, 826 P.2d 140, 142 (Utah App.1992) (citing Fernandez v. Purdue, 30 Utah 2d 389, 518 P.2d 684 (1974)). Thus, both a vacation of the premises App. 1977) (<HOLDING>); Cavalier Square v. Alcoholic Beverage Options: A. holding that guest of hotel not entitled to notice of eviction B. holding notice to quit is evidence that tenant did not leave voluntarily but absent showing of malice action for constructive eviction may not stand where there has been no physical interference with leased premises C. holding threat by lessor to resort to legal process when made in good faith is not intentional conduct supporting finding of constructive eviction D. holding that wjhen a wrongful demand or notice to quit or vacate leased premises is made by a lessor or landlord and is followed by immediate surrender of possession by the lessee or tenant a constructive eviction has been accomplished E. holding mere notice to quit followed by peaceful vacation of the premises is not sufficient to constitute a claim of constructive eviction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding mere notice to quit followed by peaceful vacation of the premises is not sufficient to constitute a claim of constructive eviction
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: is being sought. James J. White and Robert S. Summers, 1 Uniform Commercial Code, § 2.5, 66, 68-69 (4th ed 1995). See also, Ingrid Michelsen Hillinger, The Article 2 Merchant Rules: Karl Llewellyn’s Attempt to Achieve The Good, The True, The Beautiful in Commercial Law, 73 Geo U 1141 (1985) (explaining that the distinction between merchants and nonmerchants is an intentional one that creates a classification on which the UCC bases different rules and different results). Because the written “Order Confirmation” evidenced a contract, stated the quantity involved, and was signed by and bound the sender, it satisfied the merchant’s exception to the statute of frauds, as stated in ORS 72.2010(2). See, e.g., Fort Hill Lumber v. Georgia-Pacific, 261 Or 431, 436, 493 P2d 1366 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Cases in accord are collected in White and Options: A. holding that buyers letter signed only by buyer was sufficient to satisfy ors 7220102 where defendant seller argued that the letter contained indefinite and inconsistent terms B. holding that issuing a letter of counseling and a letter of reprimand was not a materially adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim because the letter contained no abusive language andinstead contained jobrelated constructive criticism which can prompt an employee to improve her performance C. holding no enforceable contract where letter specified it was a letter of interest only and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement D. holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision E. holding that the repeated sending of a writing which contains certain standard terms without any action with respect to the issues addressed by those terms cannot constitute a course of dealing which would incorporate a term of the writing otherwise excluded under 2207 because the repeated exchange of forms by the parties only tells buyer that seller desires certain terms given sellers failure to obtain buyers express assent to these terms before it will ship the program buyer can reasonably believe that while seller desires certain terms it has agreed to do business on other terms those terms expressly agreed upon by the parties

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that buyers letter signed only by buyer was sufficient to satisfy ors 7220102 where defendant seller argued that the letter contained indefinite and inconsistent 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Second Restatement Effective Date, the Obligors’ Agent has provided the Agents with a listing of all material insurance maintained by each Group Member as of the Second Restatement Effective Date, with the amounts insured (and any deductibles) set forth therein.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase an aggregate of (i) $300,000 face value of 10% original issue discount Notes for a total purchase price of $270,000, and (ii) 2,000,000 Warrants, which is equal to 100% of the Shares issuable upon conversion of the purchased Notes, for no additional consideration. Each Purchaser shall deliver to the Escrow Agent, via wire transfer immediately available funds equal to such Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser, and the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Note and a Warrant as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of Company Counsel or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree. If a Closing is not held on or before November 30, 2016, the Company shall cause the Escrow Agent to return all Subscription Amounts, without interest or deduction to each prospective Purchaser.

assistant: Closings
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: who had failed the Arizona bar exam filed suit against the members of the Committee on Examinations and Admissions alleging that the manner in which they graded the exam violated the Sherman Act. Although the individual members of the Committee were the named defendants, the Court concluded that the suit was barred by Parker’s state-action exception because the “Arizona Supreme Court necessarily delegated the administration of the admissions process to the Committee ... and retained the sole authority to determine who should be admitted to the practice of law in Arizona.” .Id. at 573, 104 S.Ct. 1989. Accordingly, the conduct being “challenge[d] was in reality that of the Arizona Supreme Court.” Id.; cf. Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 790, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Here, Mothershed alleges that Arizona Supreme Options: A. holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the virginia state bar did not fall within the parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the virginia supreme court and thus it could not fairly be said that the state of virginia through its supreme court rules required the anticompetitive activities B. holding that the plan for erecting a chinese wall within a commonwealths attorneys office does not eliminate any potential imputed conflicts arising under rules of the supreme court of virginia pt 6 ii dr 5105 C. recognizing that the virginia supreme court has consistently applied the one year statute of limitation to defamation actions D. holding that the doctrine of legislative immunity did not bar prospective injunctive relief against the chief justice of the virginia supreme court insofar as he was acting to enforce rather than legislate disciplinary rules E. holding that the court had the power to enforce a 12 million judgment recommended by a special master and adopted by the court in favor of virginia and against west virginia

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the virginia state bar did not fall within the parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the virginia supreme court and thus it could not fairly be said that the state of virginia through its supreme court rules required the anticompetitive activities
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: case as well over the plaintiffs claim under section 1132(a). In its reply brief, Farm Bureau slipped in an additional jurisdictional argument: that because the plaintiff admitted that its recovery in her uninsured motorist state court case is “potential,” the present declaratory judgment action is not ripe. Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not favored. Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747, 773 (6th Cir.2012) (“Issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court” (quoting United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1191 (6th Cir.1993))). Nonetheless, ripeness is an essential feature of Article III jurisdiction, so the Court will address it. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Article III of the Constitution permits Options: A. holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention B. holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter C. holding that article iii courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists D. holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction E. holding that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate common law claims violated article iii without deciding the claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that article iii courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists
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 Guarantor agrees to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law that (a) all or any part of any security which hereafter may be held for the Loan Obligations, if any, may be exchanged, compromised or surrendered from time to time; (b) the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the Issuing Banks shall not have any obligation to protect, perfect, secure or insure any such security interests or Liens which hereafter may be held, if any, for the Loan Obligations or the properties subject thereto; (c) the time or place of payment of the Loan Obligations may be changed or extended, in whole or in part, to a time certain or otherwise, and may be renewed or accelerated, in whole or in part; (d) the Borrower and any other party liable for payment under this Agreement may be granted indulgences generally; (e) any of the provisions of this Agreement or any other Loan Document may be modified, amended or waived; (f) any party liable for the payment thereof may be granted indulgences or be released; and (g) any deposit balance for the credit of the Borrower or any other party liable for the payment of the Loan Obligations or liable upon any security therefor may be released, in whole or in part, at, before or after the stated, extended or accelerated maturity of the Loan Obligations, all without notice to or further assent by such Guarantor, which shall remain bound thereon, notwithstanding any such exchange, compromise, surrender, extension, renewal, acceleration, modification, indulgence or release.

assistant: Modifications
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.2d 1014 (1977), the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for directed verdict as to her breach of express warranty claim, “particularly in light of the requirement that the jury find the existence of the warranty by clear and convincing evidence.” ' Id. at 453, 379 A.2d 1014 (emphasis added). See also Sealover v. Carey Canada, 793 F.Supp. 569, 570-71 (M.D.Pa.1992) (directing entry of summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the punitive damage claims because the plaintiff did not show by a preponderance of evidence [Pennsylvania’s standard of proof for entitlement to punitive damages] that the defendant had actual knowledge of the hazard); School Dist. v. United States Gypsum Co., 750 S.W.2d 442, 445-46 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Whether there is legally sufficient evidence Options: A. holding what section 76872 requires is that a plaintiff who has pleaded punitive damages must offer a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages and obtain an order authorizing the maintenance of the punitive damage claim as a predicate to conducting discovery of a defendants financial worth B. holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge C. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable D. holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages E. holding that a 32 to 1 ratio of compensation to actual damages is not punitive

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge
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: In addition to all rights of indemnity and subrogation as the Grantors may have under applicable law (but subject to Section 5.03 hereof), the Company agrees that, in the event any assets of any Grantor (other than the Company) shall be sold pursuant to this Agreement or any other Security Document to satisfy in whole or in part an Obligation owed to any Secured Party, the Company shall indemnify such Grantor in an amount equal to the greater of the book value or the fair market value of the assets so sold.

assistant: Indemnity
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 Sixth Circuit that a defendant has no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a hangar that he does not control. Porter, 701 F.2d at 1164-65. Here, Mr. Lyddon maintained control over the hangar at all times, the hangar stored aircraft and equipment for Mr. Lyddon and other customers, and Mr. Ruiz had no access to the hangar after business hours. Even if Mr. Ruiz had a “subjective expectation of privacy” in the hangar, it was not an “objectively reasonable” one. See Allen, 235 F.3d at 489. Mr. Ruiz correctly contends the affidavit omitted information concerning the security of the hangar that is arguably relevant to whether he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in it. Specifically, the affidavit did not state that Mr. Ruiz paid to 81 S.Ct. 776, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961) (<HOLDING>). But this case is quite different because Mr. Options: A. holding landlord may recover from tenant for fire damage caused by tenants negligence regardless of existence of insurance B. holding that a landlord could not validly consent to the search of a house he had rented to another C. holding that police officers warrantless search of rented home with consent of landlord but not tenant violated tenants fourth amendment rights D. holding that a warrantless search of garbage located within the curtilage of the defendants home violated his fourth amendment rights E. holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police officers warrantless search of rented home with consent of landlord but not tenant violated tenants fourth amendment rights
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: On the date of the Closing, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, up to an aggregate of 1,800,000 Units at a per Unit purchase price equal to $5.00 per Unit, for total offering proceeds to the Company of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000). Each Unit price of $5.00 consists of a per share price of $2.50 for the share of Preferred Stock plus a per share price of $2.50 for the share of Common Stock. For every Unit subscribed by each applicable Purchaser, the Company shall issue such number of Warrants as set forth in Section 2.2(a) below. Each Purchaser shall deliver to the Escrow Agent via wire transfer or a certified check of immediately available funds equal to such Purchaser's Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser and the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Shares, Preferred Stock and Warrants as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a) , and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. With the consent of the Placement Agent, in lieu of delivering such funds to the Escrow Agent, Purchaser may deliver such funds at the Closing to the Company via wire transfer or a certified check of immediate available funds. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 , the Closing shall occur at the offices of EGS or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree and the Subscription Amount shall be released from escrow to the account of the Company in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement.

assistant: Closings
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: Award in 1998-1999 Nurriddin next claims that he suffered discrimination and retaliation when he was denied an award for the 1998-1999 performance evaluation period. NASA does not dispute that it did not grant Nurriddin a performance award, but denies that discrimination or retaliation played a role in its decision. A. Discrimination The record does not contain a 1998-1999 performance evaluation of Nurriddin so it is unclear whether he was eligible for an award. Drawing every inference in his favor, because he was eligible for an award in prior years, the Court will assume that he was eligible for some sort of performance award in 1998-1999. Therefore, because NASA did not grant him any performance award at all, there is an adverse action here. See, e.g., Douglas, 559 F.3d at 552-53 (<HOLDING>). Nurriddin has not, however, offered any Options: A. holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress B. holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled C. holding that even constitutional claims can be timebarred D. holding that the denial of even a purely discretionary bonus can be actionable E. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the denial of even a purely discretionary bonus can be actionable
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: access to our site and to our service is permitted on a temporary basis , and we reserve the right to withdraw or amend access to our site or our service without notice ( see below ) .

assistant: Unilateral change, Unilateral termination
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: for applications you download from the windows store : ( a ) you may install and use the application on a windows device or devices that are affiliated with the microsoft account that you use to access the windows store ; and ( b ) the device limit for the application is displayed in the store or , for some applications downloaded on the xbox console , in our usage rules .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Heptagon Creations Ltd. (“Heptagon”) appeals from a judgment granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A designer of high-end furniture, Heptagon contends that the District Court erred in dismissing its claim for copyright infringement against Defendants-Appellees Core Marketing Group, LLC, Pleskow & Rael Corporation, and Thomas Rael (“Defendants”) for copying nine of its furniture designs without permission. Because Heptagon does not press any of its other claims on appeal, it has waived those claims. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). We review a district court’s grant of a Options: A. holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived B. holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived C. holding that issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived D. holding that issues not raised in a partys opening brief are waived E. holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived

assistant: The best answer is A. holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived
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: (13) whether the defendant was found with a large amount of cash; and (14) whether the conduct of the defendant indicated a consciousness of guilt. Washington v. State, 902 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd); Chavez v. State, 769 S.W.2d 284, 288-89 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. refd). The number of linking factors present is not as important as the “logical force” they create to prove the crime was committed. Gilbert v. State, 874 S.W.2d 290, 298 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). In this case, appellant clearly demonstrated his right to possess the house by informing the officers that he rented the house when they requested consent to search. See Edwards v. State, 813 S.W.2d 572, 576-78 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, appellant exercised control Options: A. holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building B. holding that exception applies to statement by handcuffed defendant as to location of a gun in an apartment even where most of the other adults in the apartment were handcuffed because even assuming the executing officers believed that the residence was secure the circumstances were still sufficiently dangerous C. holding that protective sweep was permitted of adjacent room of apartment where apartment consisted of two small rooms D. holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police E. holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found
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: Mutual had a legitimate or arguable reason for delaying payment of Mrs. Casey’s benefits and whether such delay was a willful or malicious wrong. As Mrs. Casey argues, Mississippi workers’ compensation carriers are required to pay the first installment of compensation within fourteen days of receiving notice of the claim. See Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-37(2) (“The first installment of compensation shall become due on the fourteenth day (14th) after the employer has notice ... of injury or death.... ”). But carriers also have a duty “to fully investigate all relevant facts” surrounding a claim, Caldwell v. Alfa Ins. Co., 686 So.2d 1092, 1099 (Miss.1996), and some delay in payment is permitted while the carrier satisfies this duty despite the fourteen-day requirement, see, e.g., id. at 1098 (<HOLDING>); Pilate, 865 So.2d at 400-01 (permitting a Options: A. holding that mere delay in payment for a while would not be a material breach B. holding that a fivemonth delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was a reasonable explanation for the delay C. holding that the plaintiffs counsel were not entitled to compensation for a seventeenmonth delay in the payment of approximately 11500 in attorneys fees in one matter and a fourteenmonth delay in the payment of approximately 8000 in fees in another matter because the delay itself was not very long and the amount of fees not very high D. holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation E. holding that a partys explanation that the delay in paying costs was caused by a desire to avoid seeking public assistance in payment did not rebut inference

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The Receiving Party shall have no obligation with respect to information which: (iv) is independently developed by the Receiving Party without use of the Confidential Information; or (v) is disclosed by the Receiving Party pursuant to a valid order issued by a court or government agency, provided, however, that the Receiving Party provides the Disclosing Party: (a) prior written notice of such obligation; and

assistant: Yes
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: Unless the context requires otherwise, references to the plural include the singular and to the singular include the plural, references to any gender include any other gender, the part includes the whole, the term “including” is not limiting, and the term “or” has, except where otherwise indicated, the inclusive meaning represented by the phrase “and/or.” The words “hereof,” “herein,” “hereby,” “hereunder,” and similar terms in this Warrant refer to this Warrant as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Warrant. Section, subsection, clause, exhibit and schedule references are to this Warrant, unless otherwise specified. Any reference to this Warrant includes any and all permitted alterations, amendments, changes, extensions, modifications, renewals, or supplements thereto or thereof, as applicable.

assistant: Construction