instruction:
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.
question:
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
answer:
(B)


question:
fact that the oil traversed part of Transocean’s vessel before entering the Gulf of Mexico. We recognize that the aforementioned incidents involved blameless third parties, whereas here the owner or operator of the Deepwater Horizon might have contributed to the discharge. By all accounts, if the vessel’s blowout preventer had functioned properly, the oil would not have entered navigable waters in violation of the Clean Water Act. The defendants therefore reason that liability is properly imposed upon the owner or operator of the Deepwater Horizon. Yet it is well estab lished that this section of the Clean Water Act leaves no room for civil-penalty defendants to shift liability via allegations of third-party fault. See United States v. Tex-Tow, Inc., 589 F.2d 1310, 1314 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Early in the implementation of the Act’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys (B) holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule (C) holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party (D) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (E) holding defendant liable for penalty notwithstanding fault of a third party
answer:
(E)


question:
Plaintiffs maintain that Sehultheis intentionally directed tortious actions towards an Oklahoma resident. Plaintiffs additionally assert that Sehultheis hired an Oklahoma attorney to represent him from 1997 until 2001, which establishes additional contact with Oklahoma. Plaintiffs maintain that Sehultheis has sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to satisfy the first prong of the minimum contact analysis for specific personal jurisdiction. Defendant maintains that Sehultheis did not call Clark but acknowledge that for the purpose of determining personal jurisdiction the Court may consider the Plaintiffs representation that the call was made. However, Defendants maintain that the telephone call is insufficient. See also Far West Capital Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Misco-United Supply Inc. v. Richards of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding one phone call by itself insufficient to find minimum contacts (B) holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts (C) holding that a contract governing a onetime sale and purchase of a product negotiated by fax and phone is insufficient to establish minimum contacts where delivery actually occurred in another state (D) holding defendants phone calls and ten to twenty faxes and letters insufficient contacts for minimum contacts (E) holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant
answer:

(D)