Detailed Instructions: 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: Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass.App.Ct. 272, 517 N.E.2d 502 (1988), a Massachusetts state court stopped short of adopting the federal district court's holding but ruled that "the covenant to pay rent [in a commercial setting] is not necessarily independent." Id. 517 N.E.2d at 505. It concluded that "there is' great doubt whether ... [the doctrine that covenants are independent] remains a correct statement of Massachusetts law," because leases are for more than just the land. Id. 4 . The Teodori court concluded that the doctrine of independent covenants rests on outdated property principles rather than on contract principles, which better capture the relationship of parties in many modem leases. Id. (relying upon McDanel v. Mack Realty Co., 315 Pa. 174, 172 A. 97, 98 (1934) (<HOLDING>)). 5 . It should be noted that Kimball was the
Holding statements: (A) holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff (B) holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract (C) holding that a commercial lessee could retain possession and abate rent in response to a landlords material breach of covenant (D) holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies (E) holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
A:
holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff