Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM.
The District Court confirmed an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy holding appellant’s chattel mortgage invalid because in the copy of the mortgage note incorporated in the chattel mortgage the date of the note was left blank. This omission was important because the note provided for payment in quarterly installments “beginning three months from the date hereof”.
The relevant Connecticut statute (Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 49-93 (1958)) requires that, as a condition of its validity, a chattel mortgage contain “the terms of repayment”. Under Connecticut law this statute must be strictly construed against the mortgagee. Bickart v. Sanditz, 105 Conn. 766, 136 A. 580 (1927).
While there appears to be no direct Connecticut authority on the point here in controversy, the case of Rhode Island Hosp. Nat’l Bank, etc. v. Larson, 137 Conn. 541, 79 A.2d 182 (1951) seems to us to be sufficiently close to be controlling. In that case it was held that a conditional sales agreement in which the day of the month on which payments were to be made was left blank was invalid under a statute requiring that such an agreement, to be valid as against creditors of the vendee, must describe “all the conditions of such sale”.
Happily future Connecticut cases will not turn upon such minor technicalities, since Connecticut has now adopted the Uniform Commercial Code.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A