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.
--------
Question: venue, the propriety of venue is fixed in the county chosen by the plaintiff. Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. 15.063 (Vernon 1986); Tex.R.Civ.P. 86-1. If a defendant objects to the plaintiffs venue choice and properly challenges that choice through a motion to transfer venue, the question of proper venue is raised. Tex.R.Civ.P. 86. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that venue is maintainable in the county of suit. Id. 87-2(a). If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the trial court must transfer the lawsuit to another specified county of proper venue. Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. 15.063(1) ("The court ... shall transfer an action to another county of proper venue if ... the county in which the action is pending is not a proper county...."); Tieuel, 654 S.W.2d at 775 (<HOLDING>). If the plaintiff meets the burden, the trial
Holding statements: (A) holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings (B) recognizing that the plaintiff has the right to file suit in any permissible county (C) holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced (D) holding that even if venue was improper the case should have been transferred not dismissed (E) recognizing that if the plaintiff files suit in a county where venue does not lie the plaintiff waives the right to choose and the defendant may have the suit transferred to a proper venue

Answer: holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings

Question: 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would "impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts' case, it
Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary

Answer: holding that the act is not retroactive

Question: article is no longer manufactured or is not available, we will pay the cost of a new article similar to that damaged or destroyed and which is of comparable quality and usefulness." See policy at replacement cost settlement on personal property endorsement. 2 . The policy states "[w]e will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is completed...." See policy at replacement cost settlement on personal property endorsement. 3 . This court notes that Gilderman's summary of the Ferguson holding is inaccurate when read against the actual language of Ferguson, quoted herein. 4 . See also, Kastendiek v. Millers Mutual Insurance Co., 946 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997); Brachter v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 961 P.2d 828, 831 (Okla. 1998) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The provision does favor defendant
Holding statements: (A) holding that 672316 and 672719 stand for the principle that parties to a contract may properly limit the remedies for a breachofwarranty to repair and replacement when such limitations are reasonable but noting that the limitation is not valid when the limitation causes the product to fail of its essential purpose (B) holding limitation of liability provision limiting damages to replacement or correction of defective material andor installation in service contract for improvements to plaintiffs residence was valid and enforceable citing restatement of contracts 339 cmt g other citations omitted (C) holding replacement cost provisions making payment of replacement cost dependant upon actual repair or replacement are unambiguous (D) holding that where log home construction kit contained defects that could not be repaired contractual provision limiting damages to cost of repair failed of its essential purpose and therefore the limitation on liability was not enforceable (E) holding that written warranty may limit a remedy to repair or replacement of parts so long as limitation is clearly expressed

Answer:
holding that 672316 and 672719 stand for the principle that parties to a contract may properly limit the remedies for a breachofwarranty to repair and replacement when such limitations are reasonable but noting that the limitation is not valid when the limitation causes the product to fail of its essential purpose