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: pain and suffering, demonstrated his reliance on a prohibited tort theory); Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 527 N.E.2d 1235, 1242-43 (1988) (declining to consider an intentional infliction of emotional distress action, in which the plaintiff sought damages for “anguish, shock, nervousness, and depression,” because the abolition of claims for alienation of affections was intended to preclude these allegations); see also Wilson v. Still, 819 P.2d 714, 716 (Okla.1991) (finding a suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress was barred because the plaintiff basically sued the defendant for “wil-fully taking away her husband” and stating the legislature immunized that conduct from tort liability). But see Erickson v. Christenson, 99 Or.App. 104, 781 P.2d 383, 385-86 (1989) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, 311 Or. 266, 817 P.2d 758 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute (B) holding a plaintiff could proceed on a claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress because the alleged losses were different from those for seduction but also stating plaintiffs previously suing for seduction could recover for damage to character and reputation as well as for mental anguish and pecuniary losses (C) recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (D) holding that police officers were immune from liability for damages resulting from alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress (E) recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress

SOLUTION: holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute

PROBLEM: paradigm” and finding that Section 2113(a) bank robbery “by force and violence, or by intimidation” qualifies as a crime of violence under Section 924(c)(3(A)). Wade has therefore failed to demonstrate a “realistic probability” that the accidental use of force would meet the elements of Hobbs Act robbery. See Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. Wade’s argument is particularly unpersuasive given that the Ninth Circuit has already determined that the federal bank robbery statute to which Wade refers, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(1), which uses a definition of “crime of violence” that is nearly identical to the “crime of violence” definition provided in Section 924(c)(3)(A). See United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION Wade’s claim is procedurally 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that kidnapping is a crime of violence which necessarily involves the threatened use of physical force under 18 usc  924 (B) holding that robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of habitualoffender sentencing (C) holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc  2113a is a crime of violence (D) holding that a bank robbery conviction under  2113a by force and violence or by intimidation qualifies as a crime of violence under the  924c3a useofforce clause (E) holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc  16

SOLUTION:
holding that kidnapping is a crime of violence which necessarily involves the threatened use of physical force under 18 usc  924