TASK DEFINITION: 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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions

PROBLEM: to intervene” as a linguistic tool to highlight how little personal participation the defendant had in the arrest in that particular case. The passage shows how far below the required minimum level of involvement that particular defendant exhibited. Read in whole, Brown more accurately shows that personal participation in an arrest, or supervisory control over the arresting officer, is required in order to establish liability for unlawful arrest — mere presence is not enough. However, even assuming Plaintiffs are correct, and that law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene in other officer’s unlawful arrests, it cannot be said that the Canine Handlers or Alma Officers violated clearly established law in this case. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers were 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim (B) holding that an officer could be held liable for failing to intervene in preventing an unlawful strip search (C) holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force (D) holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officers use of excessive force the absence of authority from the supreme court or the eleventh circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant (E) holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since  951 requirements were satisfied

SOLUTION: holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim

PROBLEM: officers say that Mr. Jones ignored their commands and refused to step back, id. at 17, even though Jones has denied this. Indeed, the officers expressly decline to concede Mr. Jones’ version of the facts, instead “requesting] that this Court review the record and determine the appropriate facts.” Id. at 4 n. 1. In their reply brief, it is true, the officers argue that “even relying on Jones[’] statement of events, probable cause still exists to support his arrest.” Reply Br. at 5. They.drop all references to Mr. Jones’ physical obstruction of the officers and argue that “verbal actions” alone can rise to the level of obstructing police business. Id. at 8-10. But this effort to preserve the officers’ appeal comes too late. Cf. United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392, 401 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). And significant factual issues would remain 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reply brief is appropriate forum to rebut new material raised in appellees brief (B) holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief (C) holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited (D) holding that arguments first raised in appellants reply brief were in answer to those raised in appellees brief and therefore refusing to strike those arguments (E) holding that the appellant cannot raise new issues in a reply brief he can only respond to arguments raised for the first time in appellees brief internal quotation marks omitted

SOLUTION:
holding that reply brief is appropriate forum to rebut new material raised in appellees brief