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.
In its important features, with a single exception, this case is like Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Robertson (6 C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 619. The exception is that, after the contract of sale was made — that is, after the written order and note in payment for the machine were executed by the purchaser — the serial number of the machine' was inserted by the seller-into the order and note. This was held below to bring the contract within the Conditional Sales Act of Tennessee. That act (Shannon’s Code, § 3670al) provides that conditional sales of personal property shall be invalid unless evidenced by a written contract or memorandum “executed at the time of the sale.” If we assume, though we do not so decide, that the sale that the statute contemplates should be considered as taking place when the machine is manufactured and delivered, still there is no proof to show that the number was supplied at or before that day, or “at the time of the sale.” The contract does not, therefore, meet the require-ments of the statute as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Judgment reversed.

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

Answer: B