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.

Example Input: intended to purchase the entire 9.69 acre parcel described in the purchase and sale agreement. These findings have support in the record. Based on the evidence, the trial court could reasonably have been persuaded that it was highly probable that the parties operated under a mutual mistake as to the description in the deed. [¶ 18] Roger also argues that the doctrine of merger by deed prohibits reformation. “The doctrine of merger by deed provides that once a ... deed is accepted it becomes the final statement of the agreement between the parties and nullifies all provisions of the purchase-and-sale agreement.” Bryan, 665 A.2d at 1022 (quotation marks omitted). Merger by deed, however, does not prohibit reformation upon proof of a mutual mistake of fact at the time of closing. Cf. id. (<HOLDING>). C. Joint Accounts [¶ 19] Roger contends that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the purchase price typically is not included in the deed this term of the contract of sale is not merged with the deed (B) holding in part that party seeking reformation of deed must show the original intent or agreement of parties by clear and convincing evidence (C) holding merger by deed prohibits reformation when one of the parties learns of a mistake before closing and still signs the deed (D) holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed (E) recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: case because in Revenue Cabinet, as here, the sales tax statute did not impose a test for passage of title, and an administrative rule did impose a test for passage of title. Id. at 738-39. Here, Hales makes no claim that the impermanence of its materials results in a generally understood, implicit agreement to pass title at some point before delivery. Moreover, our statute requires an explicit agreement on passage of title before the statutory presumption can be rebutted; there is no obvious provision in this statute for an implicit understanding, which the Kentucky court thought sufficient. Consequently, the facts of Revenue Cabinet aré inapposite and its result is inapplicable to the case at bar. See also Kurtz Concrete, Inc. v. Spradling, 560 S.W.2d 858, 862 (Mo.1978) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the Commission applied the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that title insurer not in business of supplying information in issuing either title commitment or policy of title insurance for purposes of exception to moorman prohi bition against recovery of economic losses in tort further holding that contract defines title insurers liability (B) holding that title passes on mixture of readymix concrete because of usage of trade (C) recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim (D) holding in a slander of title action that attorneys fees are recoverable as part of the costs of removing the cloud from the title (E) holding that void deed is neither title nor color of title
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: owner of every container that conceals its contents from plain view.” United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798, 822-823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572, citing Robbins v. California (1981), 453 U.S. 420, 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744. The court went on to state that the degree of that protection varies depending on the circumstances, noting that a suitcase may be randomly searched by customs agents or that containers, including those found inside automobiles, may be searched incident to the arrest of the owner. Id. at. 823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572. Other cases have recognized that one may not have Fourth Amendment protections from searches of “rare single purpose containers which by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectatio pp. No. 99CR203, 2001 WL 62288 (<HOLDING>). In Texas v. Brown (1983), 460 U.S. 730, 103 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him (B) holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station (C) holding that plaintiff conceded argument raised in dispositive motion by failing to address it (D) holding that a folded index card is not a singlepurpose container since officer conceded that contents were not immediately apparent to him (E) holding that appellant did not unequivocally consent to a search when deputy asked him if he would mind if the contents of his pockets were removed and appellant did not respond
Example Output:
(D)