In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. 6 . The Supreme Court of Connecticut has already rejected the ¡ex loci delicti rule in workers’ compensation actions in favor of “interest analysis” and the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” approach. See Simaitis v. Flood, 182 Conn. 24, 29-33, 437 A.2d 828, 831-32 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 181 (1971). 7 . See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-555 (1977) (measure of wrongful death recovery equal to value of decedent’s life and expenses); Marko v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 553, 364 A.2d 217, 219 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Halstead II, supra, 535 F.Supp. at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective (B) holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control (C) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (D) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (E) recognizing strict product liability actions
[A]: (E)


[Q]: matter. When it is clear, however, from the relevant parts of the contract taken together and considered with the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, that the obligation in question was within the contemplation of the parties or was necessary to effect their intention, then such obligation may be implied and enforced. But when the contract between the parties speaks to the obligation sought to be implied, the courts will not write that implied obligation into the contract. Stated conversely, there may be an implied covenant on the part of the lessee (in the absence of any expressed on the subject as in the lease).[ ] Id. (citations, alterations, and quotation omitted). See also Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 123 N.M. 526, 943 P.2d 560, 569 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in accordance with New Mexico law, any 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions (B) holding that courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions (C) holding that state courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants (D) holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy (E) holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter
[A]: (B)


[Q]: fact exist regarding the reason for Plaintiffs failure to meet the NCAA’s eligibility requirements and thus whether the NCAA discriminated against him based on his learning disability. Furthermore, and most important to the outcome of the case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs ADA claim has become moot in light of the fact that he will complete his fourth and final year of eligibility with the conclusion of the current football season. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs § 1983 claim "public accommodation” also applies to services, privileges, and other intangibles independent of a physical place. See, e.g., Tompkins v. United Healthcare of N.E., Inc., 203 F.3d 90, 95 n. 4 (1st Cir.2000); Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc., v. Auto. Wholesaler's Assn, Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 18-20 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See, e.g., Chabner v. United of Omaha 
 Holding statements: (A) holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii (B) holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada (C) holding that insurance company administering employerprovided disability plan was not place of public accommodation under ada because employees received their benefits through employment not through a public accommodation (D) holding that public accommodation within meaning of title iii of ada includes more than actual physical structures (E) holding that ada claim under title iii did not survive plaintiffs death
[A]:
(D)