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.

[Q]: of action to be known as “civil action”[,]’ the statute authorizing foreclosures by action compelled such suits to be brought in equity”) (some brackets added and some in original); Bank of Hawaii v. Davis Radio Sales and Service, Inc., 6 Haw.App. 469, 480-81, 727 P.2d 419, 427 (1986). A complaint in equity is an appeal to the exercise of the equity court’s sound discretion, Fleming v. Napili Kai, Ltd., 50 Haw. 66, 430 P.2d 316 (1967). Equity jurisprudence is not bound by strict rules of law, but can mold its decree “to do justice,” id.,' and a court of equity, once having assumed jurisdiction, may retain the case to afford complete relief. Tugaeff v. Tugaeff, 42 Haw. 455 (1958). Id. at 481, 727 P.2d at 427. See also Forte v. Nolfi, 25 Cal.App.3d 656, 692, 102 Cal.Rptr. 455, 479 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the circuit court had the power 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan (B) holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes (C) holding that while nondebtor purchase money deed of trust can be described as part of the same transaction by which the buyer acquired debtors real property that does not elevate the deed of trust to status of something under a plan confirmed (D) holding that when note and deed of trust were null and void and of no legal effect because of forgery assignee of note and deed of trust nevertheless had equitable lien upon property for value of construction work for which note and deed of trust were given (E) holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed
[A]: holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan


[Q]: removed. Section 141(b) does not contemplate that a director’s term could end through board shrinkage. A bylaw that seeks to achieve this result conflicts with Section 141(b) and is void. This interpretation of Section 141(b) comports with how our law has developed. Under the common law, “the voluntary assumption of management responsibility by the directors carried with it a concomitant vested right to serve out the full term for which they were elected unless there was cause for removal....” Drexler, supra, § 13.01, at 13-2; see Roven v. Cotter, 547 A.2d 603, 608 (Del.Ch.1988) (“At common law a director had a vested right in his position arising from his duties and responsibilities to the corporation.”); see also Campbell v. Loew’s, Inc., 134 A.2d 852, 857 (Del.Ch.1957) (Seitz, C.) (<HOLDING>). “Prior to 1967, the [DGCL] was silent as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders (B) recognizing common law authority of stockholders to remove a director for cause (C) recognizing common law privileges (D) recognizing the presidents authority to remove sec members for good cause despite governing statutes silence (E) recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary
[A]: holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders


[Q]: Third, the injury must not be due to the contributory negligence of plaintiff.” Savina v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 247 Kan. 105, 795 P.2d 915, 933 (1990). It is the second element that fails here. “In medical malpractice cases, the doctrine only applies when a layman could find, as a matter of common knowledge, that the patient’s condition was such that would ordinarily not have occurred if due care had been exercised.” Butler ex rel. Commerce Bank, N.A. v. HCA Health Servs. of Kan., Inc., 27 Kan.App.2d 403, 6 P.3d 871, 887 (1999). As we have already stated, however, the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to the facts of this case. Expert testimony is required to prove Mrs. Esposito’s case, and none is available. For this reason, res ipsa loquitur is unavailable as well. See id. (<HOLDING>). In her appellate briefing, Mrs. Esposito also 
 Holding statements: (A) holding res ipsa loquitur inapplicable in case where both liability and causation had to be established by expert witnesses (B) holding that while a foundation for an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be based on the testimony of an expert witness the experts testimony must establish that the occurrence indicates the probability of negligence (C) holding that permitting jury to find malpractice from blood draw without expert testimony by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur instead of eliciting expert testimony as to the standard of care to be reversible error (D) holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity (E) holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
[A]:
holding that while a foundation for an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be based on the testimony of an expert witness the experts testimony must establish that the occurrence indicates the probability of negligence