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.

Input: Consider Input: failed to complete the assignment and warranty of title to H & L on the same certificate. See Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 40-3-32(a) (Supp. 1988). Winn is still listed on the certificate as the registered owner, and under Georgia law, the certificate is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it. Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 40-3-25(c) (1985). Although our reading of the Georgia statutes yields the conclusion that ownership of the Buick did not pass to the dealership or to H & L since the certificate of title was not properly assigned, it appears that Georgia courts interpreting the same statutes would reach a different conclusion. See, e.g., American Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 149 Ga. App. 280, 253 S.E.2d 825 (1979); Mote v. Mote, 134 Ga. App. 668, 215 S.E.2d 487 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Winn’s evidence regarding the sale of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision (B) holding that ownership of vehicle later involved in accident passed to buyer even though assignment of title not completed (C) holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes (D) holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale (E) holding that delivery of possession of vehicle without delivery of certificate of title did not transfer ownership even though full payment had been received

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: designs. Moreover, we also note that the similarity of the products need not be identical, as Exmark seems to argue, because the similarity may be defined in terms of the defect and any differences among the products may merely go to the weight of the evidence and not its discoverability or admissibility. See Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1082-88 (5th Cir.1986); see also Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 977 S.W.2d at 341; Davidson Oil Country Supply, Inc. v. Klockner, Inc., 908 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir.1990). We note that many other decisions from courts around the nation reject the notion that discovery in a strict product liability case is uniformly limited to the specific product at issue. See, e.g., In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brownlow v. General Motors Corp., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware (B) recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available (C) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (D) holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect (E) holding that discovery on other tires was not overbroad where plaintiffs alleged that defendant was aware of tread separation problem

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: to create judicial precedent consistent with the opinions of this Circuit, the federal judiciary generally, and, as this is a matter of international convention, reach a result not entirely devoid of the awareness of the potential for international disparity. Nonetheless, it should be noted that there is a paucity of case law dealing with intra-court comity. Courts follow the doctrine to provide a uniform interpretation of the law. See United States v. Anaya, 509 F.Supp. 289, 293 (S.D.Fla.1980), aff'd sub nom United States v. Zayas-Morales, 685 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir.1982). Unlike circuit court panels where one panel will not overrule another, see Julius v. Johnson, 755 F.2d 1403, 1404 (11th Cir.1985), district courts are not held to the same standard. See Anaya, 509 F.Supp. at 293 n. 2 (<HOLDING>). While the decisions of their fellow judges 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels (B) holdings of the court of appeals not specifically reversed by the supreme court retain precedential value (C) recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels (D) holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value (E) holding onejustice opinion has no precedential value


Output: (D)