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: The Washington Supreme Court upheld its similar statute against a special legislation challenge in Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co., 81 Wash. 2d 528, 503 P. 2d 108 (1972). The court found persuasive the fact that “the scope of the Washington provision is not limited as to vocation. The subject statute bars actions against any person having constructed, altered or repaired any improvement upon real property.” Id. at 532, 503 P. 2d at 111 (emphasis original) ; see also Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, 61 N. J. 190, 293 A. 2d 662 (1972). We cannot conclude that the 1965 Act is a special law coming within the constitutional proscription. See Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, supra; contra, Skinner v. Anderson, 38 Ill. 2d 455, 231 N. E. 2d 588 (1967) (<HOLDING>). II Similarly, we find no violation of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding statute authorizing creation of community councils in certain counties was unconstitutional special law (B) holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law (C) holding  122604a companion legislation to  122603 unconstitutional (D) holding the illinois statute unconstitutional as violating a special legislation proscription (E) holding that illinois public policy did not require the application of illinois law to an illinois accident involving only indiana residents insured in indiana

SOLUTION: holding statute authorizing creation of community councils in certain counties was unconstitutional special law

PROBLEM: commercial, including ... [any maritime contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce], falls under the Convention. An agreement or award arising out of such a relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States shall be deemed not to fall under the Convention unless that relationship involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. For the purpose of this section a corporation is a citizen of the United States if it is incorporated or has its principal place of business in the United States. 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 and 202; see also 9 U.S.C. § 2. A seaman’s contract that contains an agreement to arbitrate generally falls under the convention. Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1299 (<HOLDING>) (citing Francisco v. STOLT ACHIEVEMENT MT, 293 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous (B) holding implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing found in some commercial contracts does not extend to atwill employment contracts (C) holding that contracts for an indefinite period are excluded from the statutes coverage (D) holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims (E) holding that the convention and us implementing statutes do not recognize an exception for seaman employment contracts and concluding that such contracts are commercial for purposes of same

SOLUTION: holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous

PROBLEM: Co., 633 F.2d 214 (table) 1980 LEXIS 13583 (6th Cir.1980) (quoting C.J.S. Contracts 100(1) at pp. 790-91); Willard, Sutherland & Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 489, 43 S.Ct. 592, 67 L.Ed. 1086 (1923); General Motors Corp. v. Keener Motors, Inc., 194 F.2d 669 (6th Cir.1952); Tennessee Enamel Mfg. Co. v. Stoves, Inc., 192 F.2d 863 (6th Cir.1951). “A promise that does not put any limitation on the freedom of the alleged promissor but leaves his future action subject only to his own will is illusory. It is not enforceable against the one making it nor operative as consideration for a return promise.” Pippin Way v. Four Star Music Co. (In re Four Star Music Co.), 2 B.R. 454, 460 (Bankr.M.B.Tenn.1979); Loudenback Fertilizer Co. v. Tennessee Phosphate Co., 121 F. 298, 302 (6th Cir.1903) (<HOLDING>). A distribution agreement that does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract (B) holding that mutuality of obligation is essential for contracts based on mutual promises and that a contract is unenforceable where a party is free to perform or not perform the contract (C) holding mutuality of obligation is essential to the formation of a bilateral contract (D) holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration (E) holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality

SOLUTION:
holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract