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.

[EX Q]: reliance is essential element of negligent misrepresentation claim). Since Purchasers are estopped from relying on a representation outside of the agreement, they cannot sustain any of the causes of action that require justifiable reliance. Therefore, the fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and FBPA claims fail, even construing the pleadings most favorably to Purchasers. Nevertheless, Purchasers argue that the determination of justifiable reliance is a jury question. While justifiable reliance may be a jury question in a fraud case where no contract exists or where the contract has become void, it is a question of law in a case where the contract language prevails and the contract’s merger clause precludes reliance on oral representations. Compare City Dodge, 232 Ga. at 770 (<HOLDING>) with First Data POS, 273 Ga. at 796 (holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law (B) holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance (C) holding that where a merger clause is included in the written contract alleged collateral promises will not be enforced through fraud because under fraud the reliance must be reasonable (D) holding that the only fraud that could vitiate the contract is fraud that would invalidate the merger clause itself ie fraud relating to the merger clause or fraud that invalidates the entire contract including the merger clause quoting 3 corbin contracts  578 (E) holding that justifiable reliance is a jury question where the contract containing the merger clause was found invalid due to an antecedent fraud
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: Plaintiff did not meet the notice requirements of the CFRA and the FMLA. Plaintiff did not notify Defendant in advance that Plaintiff would be absent from March 31, 2014 through April 3, 2014. Alejandro Depo., Vol. II at 338:2-339:1, 339:9-340:8; Alejandro Depo., Exhs. Vol. II. Additionally, Plaintiff did not call in sick or ask someone to call Defendant on his behalf on any of those four days of absence, even though Plaintiff made 26 phone calls to individuals or entities other than McCale or Defendant. Alejandro Depo., Vol. II at 338:2-339:1, 339:9-340:8; Alejandro Depo,, Exhs. Vol. II. Thus, unlike in Avila, upon which Plaintiff relies, Plaintiff did not call in sick during his absence from March 31, 2014 through April 3,2014. See Avila, 165 Cal.App.4th at 1258, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 440 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, two weeks prior to Plaintiffs 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party (B) holding that absence from prior state was temporary during the time it was contemplated that the parent and child would return to the other state (C) holding that spouse was not required to return to work immediately upon divorce to avoid judicial imputation of income (D) holding that calling in sick during an absence and providing hospital forms describing the illness upon return to work is sufficient notice (E) holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: did occur and there was no match. Detective Daniels testified that the partial palm prints did not match with those of Overton. Second, Overton’s counsel did properly address the testimony of Dr. Nelms by presenting Dr. Wright as a defense expert. Wright expressed the opinion that it was possible that the murders occurred elsewhere and that there was more than one perpetrator. Thus, these claims were legally insufficient on their face. Contrary to Overton’s arguments, an evidentiary hearing was in fact granted 'on the allegations in paragraph 34 of the petition directed to counsels failure to prompt ly denied. As we have explained, all of Overton’s claims of error have been rejected which renders this cumulative error claim moot. See Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1252 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Claim XI, directed to a lack of effective 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a remand and possibly an evidentiary hearing was necessary for reconsideration of the plaintiffs claim for injuries allegedly caused by the states negligent failure to maintain a public highway because court of appeals could not tell whether parties presented and court considered all relevant evidence on the issue (B) holding that a remand for an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary in part because the record negated the possibility that counsels omission was strategic (C) holding that the claim of cumulative error was rendered moot because all claims were rejected but one for which an evidentiary hearing would occur on remand (D) holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense (E) holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing
[EX A]:
(C)