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.
Input: law principles that govern the formation of contracts. Sitarik v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. Partnerships (JFK), 7 So.3d 576, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "Where two or more documents are executed by the same parties, at or near the same time, in the course of the same transaction, and concern the same subject matter, they will be read and construed together." Collins v. Citrus Nat'l Bank, 641 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also KRC Enters., Inc. v. Soder-quist, 553 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). But if the parties execute "two separate contracts and only one contract contains an arbitration clause, the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes arising from the contract that does not call for arbitration." Lee v. All Fla. Constr. Co., 662 So.2d 365, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). "Arbitration provisions from one contract
Holding statements: (A) holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause (B) holding that the arbitration agreement in a written contract did not apply to a dispute arising from a subsequent oral agreement which did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the written contract (C) holding that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes under a contract covers any dispute between the parties that has a significant relationship to the contract (D) holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause (E) holding that a homeowner could not arbitrate a dispute over a home repair contract which did not have an arbitration clause on the grounds that another contract for a home addition with the same contractor contained an arbitration clause
Output:
holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause