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.

requirements under UFTA, Gulf and Security nevertheless contend that as a matter of law and of public policy the statute of limitations should not have commenced in this action until they obtained the default judgment against Clark in August of 1997 in California. ¶24 As far as the law is concerned, Gulf and Security vigorously argue under the mistaken assumption that a creditor may not assert an UFTA claim until after the underlying judgment is entered. This persistent assumption represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law under UFTA. ¶25 Gulf and Security base their theory on our decision in Murphy v. Atkinson (1993), 262 Mont. 164, 864 P.2d 273, as well as a recent appellate court decision from California, Cortez v. Vogt (Cal.Ct.App. 1997), 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 853-54 (<HOLDING>). In Murphy, we determined that a cause of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the twoyear time limitation of rule 3850 does not commence until the sentence becomes final (B) holding that statements and charges by municipality may not be amended in light of legislative purpose of shielding police and similar employees from harassment (C) holding that in view of legislative statements of policy and purpose of the ufta as a cumulative and additional remedy limitation period did not commence until debtorcreditor relationship existed after judgment was made final (D) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence (E) holding that statements made in the course of negotiation were not contracts and such statements were merged into the final written agreement
(C)

its concern with Plaintiffs’ lack of proof of causation and specific damages when the court entered summary judgment against them on their injurious falsehood/business disparagement and wrongful interference with business relations claims, and Plaintiffs’ testimony at trial failed to further illuminate their assertion that Petta’s statements caused them special damages. Plaintiffs’ testimony about special damages was unsupported by any documentary evidence, including any business operations analysis, tax returns or similar exhibits, or expert testimony, and Plaintiffs’ own con-clusory statements provided little quantifiable evidence of their claimed damages, leaving the jury to speculate regarding special damages. See Gilmore v. Cohen, 95 Ariz. 34, 36-37, 386 P.2d 81, 82-83 (1963) (<HOLDING>). ¶43 Furthermore, the evidence presented does 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fifth and fourteenth amendments do not entitle a person to a federal remedy for every breach of contract by a state thus unless every breach of every public contract is to be actionable as a violation of constitutional rights it is necessary to distinguish between mere contract rights and constitutional property rights internal citations and quotation marks omitted (B) holding that the governments position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted (C) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract (D) recognizing in a breach of contract ease that the plaintiff in every case should supply some reasonable basis for computing the amount of damage and must do so with such precision as from the nature of his claim and the available evidence is possible citations omitted (E) holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion
(D)

to build and repair the furnaces as promised under the warranty. This is precisely what Spectro claims in Counts 2, 6, and 10. There are cases in which a party may plead separate breach of contract and breach of warranty claims. See, e.g., Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 3:97-CV-1480-L, 2001 WL 1388872, *6, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16807, *13-20 (N.D.Tex.2001) (“delivery of inferior goods or services equate to a warranty claim while delivery of nothing equates to a contract claim” and plaintiff “failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether its breach of contract claim is distinct from its breach of warranty claims”); see also Reynolds Metals Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 758 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir.1985) (discussed at length in Alcan) (<HOLDING>); and see Rhode v. E & T Invs., Inc., 29 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only (B) holding that an agreement in which one party promised to make monthly payments to the other partys attorney as part of an asset sale contract was for the direct benefit of the attorney (C) holding that a warranty claim survived alongside a contract claim where a service was promised in addition to the sale of a good (D) holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed (E) holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted

(C)