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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: those who choose to access world of warcraft through the service from other locations do so on their own initiative and are responsible for compliance with local laws , if and to the extent local laws are applicable .

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: while Deputy Sizemore had his driver’s license, appellant would have violated Code § 46.2-104, which prohibits a vehicle operator from driving without a license. See Brown, 17 Va.App. at 697, 440 S.E.2d at 621 (under circumstances where police observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle, when an officer asked the defendant for his operator’s license, the defendant “was no longer free to leave”). For these reasons, we hold that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss appellant’s conviction. Reversed and dismissed. 1 . Police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in a public place and asking questions. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1323-24, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)(<HOLDING>); Richards v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 612, 615, Options: A. holding that the fourth amendment was not implicated when an officer asked for passengers identification to see if he could drive a vehicle because the driver had a suspended license B. holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions C. holding that the defendant had been subjected to an illegal arrest when after detectives requested and did not return his airline ticket and drivers license he was asked to come with the officers from the concourse into an interrogation room approximately 40 feet away where his suitcases were searched D. holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers approached defendant who was standing outside of an airport terminal and asked to see his airline ticket and identification E. holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers asked defendant to see his airline ticket asked for identification and requested consent to search him

assistant: The best answer is E. holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers asked defendant to see his airline ticket asked for identification and requested consent to search him
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 shall require any successor (whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of the Company to expressly assume and agree to perform the obligations of the Company under this Plan in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would have been required to perform such obligations if no such succession had taken place and such assumption shall be an express condition to the consummation of any such purchase, merger, consolidation or other transaction.

assistant: Successors
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: requires consideration of whether withholding adjudication of the Electrocution Causes of Action at this time will impose any meaningful hardship on the parties. “The prototypical case of hardship comes from the claimant who faces a choice between immediately complying with a burdensome law or ‘riskpng] serious criminal and civil penalties.’ ” Warshak, 532 F.3d at 526 (quoting Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 153, 87 S.Ct. 1507). This prototypical hardship is not present in this litigation. The CPEA does not force the Inmates to make any choice. In fact, as already discussed, the CPEA provides for carrying out executions by electrocution if, and only if, one of two statutory contingencies a 2012 WL 113655, at *1-2 (Tenn. Ct.App. Jan. 11, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012) (<HOLDING>). The Inmates nevertheless argue that Options: A. holding that defendant truthfully stated on firearm purchase form that he had no felony convictions given the fact that adjudication of guilt was deferred and sentence suspended on his prior offense of felony receipt of a stolen car B. holding that defendants prior felony convictions in georgia state court for drugrelated conspiracy and simple possession qualified as predicate prior felony drug offenses for 841b1a because under the plain language of the statute felony drug offense includes any criminal conduct relating to narcotics including simple possession which a state has proscribed as a felony C. holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense D. holding that the plaintiffs action was ripe where the plaintiff who had received a pardon for three felony drug convictions in georgia and had his firearm rights expressly restored by the pardon asked the court to determine whether a tennessee criminal statute prohibiting anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from possessing a firearm applied to him in light of a tennessee attorney generals opinion stating that the criminal statute applied to pardoned felony drug offenders E. holding that drug felony under state law can constitute an aggravated felony for federal sentencing guidelines purposes even if the same conduct would not constitute a felony under federal law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiffs action was ripe where the plaintiff who had received a pardon for three felony drug convictions in georgia and had his firearm rights expressly restored by the pardon asked the court to determine whether a tennessee criminal statute prohibiting anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from possessing a firearm applied to him in light of a tennessee attorney generals opinion stating that the criminal statute applied to pardoned felony drug offenders
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any disputes under this Agreement shall be submitted initially by either Party for resolution by the Executive Officers. The Executive Officers shall meet and discuss such matter within 15 days after a Party proposes that such Executive Officers meet to discuss the dispute. In the event the Executive Officers of each Party are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after receiving notice of the dispute (or such longer period as the Parties may mutually agree upon), then such dispute shall, after expiration of the 30-day period, be submitted to the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (“ CPR ”) for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause set forth in Exhibit C . Notwithstanding the foregoing, no matters relating to breach or alleged breach of the provisions of Article 6 or the ownership of intellectual property or rights in intellectual property (including Improvement and Inventions) or the validity or enforceability thereof shall be subject to resolution by the CPR, but rather shall be determined by a U.S. federal court of appropriate jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with the other Party to share, retain and maintain data and records that are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of this Section 2.4 and for each Party to administer its respective benefit plans, policies, arrangements or programs to the extent consistent with this Agreement and applicable law, and each Party agrees to cooperate as long as is reasonably necessary to further the purposes of this Section 2.4 . Except as provided under any other Ancillary Agreement, no Party shall charge another Party a fee for such cooperation.

assistant: Cooperation
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 reliance on the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained in this Third Amendment, and subject to the satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in Section 3 hereof, the Credit Agreement is hereby amended effective as of the Third Amendment Effective Date in the manner provided in this Section 1 .

assistant: Amendments
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: before notifying her and deactivated her card key such that she could not let herself into the building that morning. The adverse employment actions occurred close in time to the depositions, but even more significant is the humiliating way the actions were carried out: she was the last to know and had to be let into the building she used to run. The humiliation creates a stronger inference of retaliation than the discipline alone. Cf. Brannum v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 518 F.3d 542, 548 (8th Cir.2008) (“Rather, whether a work environment is so hostile or abusive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment is to be judged in light of all the circumstances, including ... whether it is ... humiliating .... ” (quotation omitted)); Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The majority’s response to the retaliatory Options: A. holding there was a distinct possibility in a 1983 action that the strip search and accompanying sexual humiliation was in retaliation for the individuals noncooperation and noting the possibility that the search was merely a pretext to humiliate B. holding that search of appellants suitcase found on the floor next to the couch on which he was sleeping was an unconstitutional search of his person and was not authorized by a search of the residence C. holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search D. holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises E. holding that strip search incident to arrest was not per se unreasonable but holding that search was performed in an unreasonable manner when conducted in view of the public

assistant: The best answer is A. holding there was a distinct possibility in a 1983 action that the strip search and accompanying sexual humiliation was in retaliation for the individuals noncooperation and noting the possibility that the search was merely a pretext to humiliate
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: on which he relied is barred “from seeking relief pursuant to FDUTPA, as he acted unreasonably.” Rosa v. Amoco Oil Co., 262 F.Supp.2d 1364, 1368 (S.D.Fla.2003). Here, the terms of the reinstated contract are inconsistent with the alleged misrepresentations upon which the Buyer supposedly relied. The contract provided that TRG made no representations regarding governmental approvals and expressly re moved any references to the “Intended Use” of 218 units for the property. As such, the Buyer could not justifiably rely on any representations from TRG concerning governmental approvals and the number of units that could be built on the property. The trial court should have granted TRG’s motion for a directed verdict. See St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. Cowart, 891 So.2d 1039, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the Options: A. recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party B. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict C. holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict D. holding that a motion for directed verdict should be granted if there is no evidence on which a jury could legally base a verdict for damages against the moving party E. holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a motion for directed verdict should be granted if there is no evidence on which a jury could legally base a verdict for damages against the moving party
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: refer to 1993 as the year plaintiff left Avante. This is incorrect. She left in 1994. This minor typographical error, however, does not alter the effect of the admission, which clearly requested an admission regarding what plaintiff did “after ... [leaving] Avante at Lynchburg" (emphasis added). 4 . There is no dispute in the record that Camelot and Riverside are subject to the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act. 5 . I also have doubts, based on the admissions, that plaintiff ever completed the necessary steps to be considered for admission. However, construing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, I conclude that she did take the necessary steps. 6 . Also persuasive authority is Nichols v. St. Luke Center of Hyde Park, 800 F.Supp. 1564, 1570 (S.D.Ohio 1992) (<HOLDING>). "If an individual's handicap cannot be Options: A. holding rehabilitation act applicable B. holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation C. holding that sanction of removal for nursing home attendant who was found to have hit patient suffering from dementia should be reduced to penalty of sixmonth suspension because act of hitting patient was isolated instance in which patient was aggressor D. holding that no rehabilitation act violation occurred when nursing home discharged patient with behavioral problems because no reasonable accommodation existed E. holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that no rehabilitation act violation occurred when nursing home discharged patient with behavioral problems because no reasonable accommodation existed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS MADE AND TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH STATE. Section 6.4 of the Facility Agreement is incorporated herein, mutatis mutandis .

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: F.2d 664, 667 (6th Cir.1987) (“A defendant relying upon the argument that he has received a disproportionate sentence must establish more than the mere fact that other defendants have received less harsh sentences for similar crimes.”). During oral argument before this court, a crucial issue surfaced as to wheth er the district court properly imposed a two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. That enhancement, as we have already noted, raised the sentencing level to 43 and required a mandatory life sentence. A review of the record indicates that there is neither evidence nor any hearing supporting this enhancement and thus, this case must be remanded for re-sentencing. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) (<HOLDING>). We review the evidence in the record Options: A. holding that before a court imposes an enhancement for obstruction of justice the court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice B. holding that enhancement for obstruction of justice which uses similar mandatory language must be applied where factual predicates are satisfied C. holding that willful failure to appear at sentencing supported obstruction of justice enhancement D. holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error E. holding that obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied where the defendant provided materially false information to a magistrate judge

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that before a court imposes an enhancement for obstruction of justice the court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The rights and obligations hereunder of each of the parties hereto shall be governed by and interpreted and determined in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York but excluding any principles of conflicts of law or other rule of law that would cause the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the laws of the State of New York.

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: 3. Each party agrees and undertakes that it shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, reproduce or transmit in arty manner, or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any Confidential Information save and except both parties may disclose any Confidential Information to their Affiliates, directors, officers, employees or advisors of their own or of Affiliates on a “need to know” basis to enable them to evaluate such Confidential Information in connection with the negotiation of the possible business relationship; provided that such persons have been informed of, and agree to be bound by obligations which are at least as strict as the recipient’s obligations hereunder. 16. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to confer any rights/remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any third party.

assistant: No
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: because of (1) non-compliance with employer protocols, and (2) the passage of time and distance between their utterance in Virginia and the complained-of adverse employment action in New York. After analyzing the relevant considerations, we determine that, for the reasons stated below, the New York forgery accusation was not protected speech, but that the Virginia abuse report is. 1. The Forgery Incident Nagle argues that any personal interest she may have had in speaking about the forgery incident does not do away with whatever First Amendment protection the speech is entitled to. We agree that the primary question for First Amendment purposes is whether the matter is of public concern, not whether the speech was also made to serve some private interest. Cf. Reuland, 460 F.3d at 415 (<HOLDING>). Nagle further argues that the fact that the Options: A. recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern B. holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern C. holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern D. holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation E. holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern
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 the contraband. Wagner, 950 So.2d at 513. Where premises are jointly occupied and “contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant[,]” the circumstances are “sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession.” Brown, 428 So.2d at 252. An inference of knowledge and dominion and control may also arise where the contraband located in jointly occupied premises is found in or about other personal property which is shown to be owned or controlled by the defendant. See Holland, 975 So.2d at 598 (stating that discovery of contraband “in close proximity to [defendant’s health insurance] card and other belongings” was “direct evidence connecting [defendant] to the contraband from which a jury could infer actual knowledge”); Wale, 397 So.2d at 740 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Fossett, 119 N.H. 155, 399 Options: A. holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant possessed contraband found in the kitchen of a residence where the defendant was found in the nearby bathroom attempting to dispose of contraband down the toilet B. holding evidence that marijuana was found in jointly occupied vehicle in open view was insufficient to establish defendants dominion and control by preponderance of evidence C. holding that the defendants dominion control and knowledge may be inferred if he had exclusive possession of the premises on which the object was found emphasis added D. holding that if the site where the contraband is found is in joint rather than exclusive possession a defendants knowledge of the contrabands presence and his ability to control it cannot be inferred merely from the defendants proximity to the contraband E. holding that circumstance that contraband was found in a box bearing defendants name was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and dominion and control

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that circumstance that contraband was found in a box bearing defendants name was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and dominion and control
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 all the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and permitted assigns. Purchaser may assign its rights under the Agreement to an affiliate that controls Purchaser or is controlled by Purchaser or is under common control with Purchaser, including joint venture entities in which Purchaser or its affiliates share control with third parties, without the prior written consent of Seller (each such assignee a " Purchaser’s Permitted Assignee "). Other than the foregoing, neither Purchaser nor Seller may assign this Agreement without first obtaining the other party’s written consent, which may be withheld in such other party’s sole discretion. Upon an assignment by Purchaser of its rights under the Agreement in accordance with this Section, Purchaser’s Permitted Assignee(s) shall be deemed to be the Purchaser hereunder and shall be the beneficiary of all of Seller’s warranties, representations and covenants in favor of Purchaser under this Agreement. If there is more than one Seller hereunder, the obligations of Sellers hereunder shall be joint and several.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to withdraw his pleas on the basis that he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would not be sentenced as a habitual offender. The portion of the transcript of the plea hearing that Harris attached to his motion appears to support this claim. However, Harris again failed to allege prejudice, because he failed to allege that he would not have pleaded if he had known that the trial court would sentence him as a habitual offender. When a defendant, in a rule 3.850 motion, seeks to withdraw his plea on the ground that it was involuntary because he was provided incorrect information regarding the consequences of the plea, he must allege that he would not have accepted the plea if he had been fully aware of the consequences. See State v. Taylor, 738 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Again our affirmance is without prejudice to Options: A. holding in direct conflict with the second third and fifth districts that allegations of affirmative misadvice by trial counsel on the sentenceenhancing consequences of a defendants plea for future criminal behavior in an otherwise facially sufficient motion are cognizable as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim B. holding that a defendant must be allowed to withdraw a plea entered based upon the misadvice of counsel regarding potential penalties to be faced upon entry of the plea C. holding that in order to establish prejudice based on misadvice regarding sentence length defendant must allege generally that he would not have pleaded but for the bad advice D. holding that the defendant was entitled to have his plea accepted absent a sound reason for rejecting the plea E. holding that for a facially sufficient claim that the plea was involuntary based on misadvice of counsel defendant must allege he would not have accepted the plea agreement but for the misadvice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that for a facially sufficient claim that the plea was involuntary based on misadvice of counsel defendant must allege he would not have accepted the plea agreement but for the misadvice
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: S.W.3d 687, 709 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). 2 . GuideOne Elite Ins. Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305, 311-12 (Tex.2006). 3 . Doncaster v. Hernaiz, 161 S.W.3d 594, 606 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.). 4 . Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). 5 . Santa Fe Petroleum, L.L.C. v. Star Canyon Corp., 156 S.W.3d 630, 641 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2004, no pet.). 6 . Doncaster, 161 S.W.3d at 606. 7 . Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex.1997) (quoting Tex Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 1.04(b), reprinted in Tex Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. A, State Bar Rules, art. X, § 9 (Vernon 2005 & Sup (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 12 . See Stover, 17 S.W.3d at 397-98. 13 . Options: A. holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law B. holding that section 721312 florida statutes provides for an award of appellate attorneys fees where the issue was the reasonableness of the fee awarded by the trial court C. holding that awarded fees were reasonable and that proof that attorneys fees are necessary apart from testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee is not required D. holding that appellate court should reverse and remand issue of attorneys fees where damages are reduced on appeal in a manner that could affect the determination of reasonable and necessary attorneys fees E. holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that awarded fees were reasonable and that proof that attorneys fees are necessary apart from testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee is not required
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and, unless otherwise specified herein, shall be (i) personally served, (ii) deposited in the mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, (iii) delivered by reputable air courier service with charges prepaid, or (iv) transmitted by hand delivery, telegram, or facsimile, addressed as set forth below or to such other address as such party shall have specified most recently by written notice. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be deemed effective (a) upon hand delivery or delivery by facsimile, with accurate confirmation generated by the transmitting facsimile machine, at the address or number designated below (if delivered on a business day during normal business hours where such notice is to be received), or the first business day following such delivery (if delivered other than on a business day during normal business hours where such notice is to be received) or (b) on the second business day following the date of mailing by express courier service, fully prepaid, addressed to such address, or upon actual receipt of such mailing, whichever shall first occur. The addresses for such communications shall be: (i) if to Borrower, to: Rasna Therapeutics, Inc., Attn: Kunwar Shailubhai, facsimile: ________ , with a copy by fax only to (which shall not constitute notice): Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112, Attn: Jeffrey Fessler, Esq., facsimile: (212) 930-9725, and (ii) if to the Holder, to: the address and fax number indicated on the front page of this Note, with an additional copy by fax only to (which shall not constitute notice): __________ facsimile: _______.

assistant: Notices
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: (i) To the extent permitted by law, all payments under this Agreement and under the Revolving Credit Notes (including payments of principal and interest) shall be payable to each Lender free and clear of any and all present and future taxes, levies, imposts, duties, deductions, withholdings, fees, liabilities and similar charges other than Excluded Taxes (collectively, “ Taxes ”). If any Taxes are required to be withheld or deducted from any amount payable under this Agreement, then the amount payable under this Agreement shall be increased to the amount which, after deduction from such increased amount of all Taxes required to be withheld or deducted therefrom, will yield to such Lender the amount stated to be payable under this Agreement. The Borrower shall also hold each Lender harmless and indemnify it for any stamp or other taxes with respect to the preparation, execution, delivery, recording, performance or enforcement of the Credit Documents (all of which shall be included within “Taxes”). If any of the Taxes specified in this Section 4.04(a) are paid by any Lender, the Borrower shall, upon demand of such Lender, promptly reimburse such Lender for such payments, together with any interest, penalties and expenses incurred in connection therewith; provided , however , that the Borrower shall not be required to reimburse any Lender for any penalties incurred or caused by the failure or delay on the part of such Lender to pay any of the Taxes specified in this Section 4.04(a). The Borrower shall deliver to the Administrative Agent certificates or other valid vouchers for all Taxes or other charges deducted from or paid with respect to payments made by the Borrower hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Borrower shall be entitled, to the extent required to do so by law, to deduct or withhold (and shall not be required to make payments as otherwise required by this Section 4.04 on account of such deductions or withholdings) income or other similar taxes imposed by the United States of America from interest, fees or other amounts payable hereunder for the account of any Lender other than a Lender (A) that is a U.S. Person for U.S. federal income tax purposes or (B) that has the Prescribed Forms on file with the Borrower for the applicable year to the extent deduction or withholding of such taxes is not required as a result of such filing of such Prescribed Forms; provided that, if the Borrower shall so deduct or withhold any such taxes, the Borrower shall provide a statement to the Administrative Agent and such Lender, setting forth the amount of such taxes so deducted or withheld, the applicable rate and any other information or documentation which such Lender may reasonably request for assisting such Lender to obtain any allowable credits or deductions for the taxes so deducted or withheld in the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which such Lender is subject to tax.

assistant: Withholdings
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 Fifth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Fifth Amendment by fax or electronic mail shall be equally as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Fifth Amendment.

assistant: Counterparts
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: [¶ 26] In support of his argument, Muhle asserts that the “new statements by G.E.” just before trial were favorable to the defendant in that they were completely inconsistent with G.E.’s prior interviews, that Muhle would have been able to better prepare for cross-examination and his testimony if he had known of the inconsistency, and that he had “no way to anticipate this new evidence.” [¶ 27] The United States Supreme Court has held evidence that can be used to impeach a witness is subject to disclosure under Brady. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (stating that the duty under Brady “encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence”); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (<HOLDING>). See, e.g., Spicer v. Roxbury Correctional Options: A. holding evidence not to be material within the meaning of brady when the evidence did not eliminate the defendant as the perpetrator B. holding impeachment evidence falls within the brady rule C. holding that the alleged brady material was merely cumulative to the significant impeachment that already occurred during trial so there was no prejudice for a brady violation D. holding that the prosecutors nondisclosure of material evidence affecting a witnesss credibility which goes uncorrected falls within the requirements of brady E. holding that an admission falls under the rule of completeness

assistant: The best answer is B. holding impeachment evidence falls within the brady rule
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 without any further action on the part of the Issuing Bank that issued such Letter of Credit or the Lenders, but subject to Section 2.21(b)(xi) , such Issuing Bank hereby grants to each other Revolving Lender (in the case of the Letter of Credit), and each such Revolving Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Lender’s Revolving Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each such Revolving Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the Issuing Bank that issued such Letter of Credit, such Lender’s applicable Revolving Percentage of each LC Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the Borrower on the date due as provided in paragraph (e) of this Section, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Borrower for any reason. Each 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 Revolving 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: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of any Loans, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.15 , 2.16 , 2.17 and 10.03 and Article IX shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: period would have on FLSA recoveries, most courts have held that such provisions are unenforceable. See Taylor v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., No. 1:13 CV 31, 2013 WL 2087359, at *3 (N.D.Ohio May 14, 2013) (refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement that provided for a 30-day period of limitations because it “[d]epriv[ed] an employee of his full recovery by diminishing his right to compensation” and therefore “denie[d] him his substantive rights under the FLSA.”); Pruiett, 2011 WL 5520969, at *5 (“Plaintiffs’ substantive right to full compensation under the FLSA may not be bargained away[,]” and therefore “the contractual limitations period is unenforceable as to FLSA claims.”); see also Wineman v. Durkee Lakes Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc., B52 F.Supp.2d 815, 822 (E.D.Mich.2005) (<HOLDING>). The decision to the contrary, Boaz v. Federal Options: A. holding that the flsa does not preempt a state law contractual claim that seeks to recover wages for time that is compensable under the contract but not under the flsa B. holding that placement of a contractual limitations period in a section entitled claims was reasonable C. holding under flsa D. holding that enforcing a contractual limitations period against an flsa claim violates public policy for other reasons E. holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that enforcing a contractual limitations period against an flsa claim violates public policy for other reasons
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 NOT PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW WHICH CANNOT BE WAIVED, EACH PARTY HEREBY WAIVES AND COVENANTS THAT IT WILL NOT ASSERT (WHETHER AS PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT OR OTHERWISE) ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY FORUM IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE OR ACTION, CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION OR SUIT (IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE), INQUIRY, PROCEEDING OR INVESTIGATION ARISING OUT OF OR BASED UPON THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED OR INCIDENTAL TO THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY, IN EACH CASE WHETHER NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER ARISING. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS BEEN INFORMED BY THE OTHER PARTIES THAT THIS SECTION 4.9 CONSTITUTES A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT UPON WHICH THEY ARE RELYING AND WILL RELY IN ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. ANY PARTY MAY FILE AN ORIGINAL COUNTERPART OR A COPY OF THIS SECTION 4.9 WITH ANY COURT AS WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE CONSENT OF EACH SUCH PARTY TO THE WAIVER OF ITS RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Subsidiary Loan Parties, in its capacity as a guarantor under the Subsidiary Guarantee Agreement and a pledgor under the Security Documents to which such Subsidiary Loan Party is a party, hereby (i) consents to the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and agrees that each of the Subsidiary Guarantee Agreement and the Security Documents to which such Subsidiary Loan Party is a party is, and shall continue to be, in full force and effect and is hereby in all respects ratified and confirmed on the December 2018 Effective Date, except that, on and after the December 2018 Effective Date, each reference to “ Credit Agreement ”, “ First Lien Credit Agreement ”, “ thereunder ”, “ thereof ” or words of like import shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean and be a reference to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement and (ii) confirms that the Security Documents to which each of the Subsidiary Loan Parties is a party and all of the Collateral described therein do, and shall continue to, secure the payment of all of the Obligations.

assistant: Consents
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: Adhin, 44 So.3d at 1251-52; Avalon Assocs. of Del. Ltd. v. Avalon Park Assocs., Inc., 760 So.2d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Standing to record a lis pendens only requires a complaint that supports a claim against the specific property. Tortu v. Tortu, 430 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). On the other hand, standing to contest the validity of a mortgage belongs to the mortgagor and to third persons whose rights or interests are adversely affected by the mortgage, such as junior mortgagees or creditors with an interest or lien in Property. While their claims may have been sufficient to allow the recording of a lis pendens, as the Krauses concede, the notice did not create any interest or substantive rights in the Property. Adhin, 44 So.3d at 1251-52. d 877, 892 (La.Ct.App. 2003) (<HOLDING>); 7 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Options: A. holding that the individual defendants were acting as principals andor officers of the corporation and therefore there was no third party present to interfere in the relationship to which their corporation was a party B. holding internal revenue service has standing to challenge validity of mortgage of seized property C. holding that the funds in the privatelyheld corporations account belonged to the corporation not to the individuals who owned the corporation and expressly stating that directors officers and shareholders of a corporation do not have standing to claim an ownership interest in corporate property in their individual capacities they must state a claim in the corporate name D. holding that where there was question of impropriety of party to mortgage corporate property only the corporation would have standing to complain of his unauthorized act E. holding that a corporation is held responsible for acts not within the agents corporate powers strictly construed but which the agent has assumed to perform for the corporation when employing the corporate powers actually authorized and in such eases there need be no written authority under seal or vote of the corporation in order to constitute the agency or to authorize the act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where there was question of impropriety of party to mortgage corporate property only the corporation would have standing to complain of his unauthorized act