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.
Input: we hold that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim to enforce these covenants as equitable servitudes unless some additional, more precise standards are legally necessary to define and restrict Plaintiffs power of approval. THE DEVELOPER'S POWER OF APPROVAL 16. Defendants contend that the equitable servitudes are unenforceable because the Declaration contains no clear standards for the developer to apply when deciding to approve or disapprove of a particular mobile home. This is an issue of first impression in New Mexico. 17. Some jurisdictions require reasonable parameters in the form of written or de facto guidelines to show that the approving authority is acting reasonably. See Town & Country Estates Ass'n v. Slater, 227 Mont. 489, 740 P.2d 668, 671 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Prestwick Landowners' Ass'n v. Underhill, 69
Holding statements: (A) holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable (B) holding that property owner who violated restrictive covenant multiple times over several years waived enforcement of same restriction against third parties as matter of law (C) holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans (D) holding that a restrictive covenant requiring approval of building plans by homeowners association which failed to define standard of approval was too vague for enforcement (E) holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable
Output:
holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable