{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues in the criminal system including when people are charged with crimes, go to a criminal trial, go to prison, or are a victim of a crime?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nGot six months probation for a DUI. Stayed out of trouble mostly, but as a result of severe mental illness and a little bit of laziness, I didn't do all the requirements on time. I told my PO I was having problems with the conditions and I got a notice from the judge that I had a probation violation hearing ordered. I didn't start my community service until after the hearing was ordered and didn't finish it until after my probation was scheduled to end. I didn't enroll in a DUI school until afterwards too, and while I've now done that - they didn't have an opening until after the date of the hearing. Also they said I didn't do the vehicle immobilization, but I have paperwork saying I sold the car almost immediately (which I told them before).   So, technically all I have to do is finish the DUI class. How much am I screwed considering I've done most of the terms now, if not just incredibly late?   Will the judge likely close the case, extend my probation, or give me jail time? I have no prior criminal history. But I don't really have an excuse and I'm not sure what I could say in my defense.   Also - I'm unemployed. I've heard some say employment is a condition for probation, but I was never told that and can't find much on it. Will that hurt me too?  Thanks.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_crime:263", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_crime", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 263}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOn the issue of whether Carl had knowledge of Amy's intentions, Carl told the questioning attorney on redirect examination that he knew Amy's intentions.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:24", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 24, "slice": "Statement made in-court"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nprovided, that notwithstanding the foregoing, no Loan Party shall directly or indirectly Dispose of (whether in one or a series of transactions) any Material Intellectual Property (as defined in the Security Agreement) to any non-Loan Party.  provided, that notwithstanding the foregoing, no Loan Party shall make any Restricted Payment of any Material Intellectual Property (as defined in the Security Agreement) to any non-Loan Party.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "jcrew_blocker:25", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "jcrew_blocker", "task_family": "jcrew", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 25}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: You are a lobbyist analyzing Congressional bills for their impacts on companies. Given the title and summary of the bill, plus information on the company from its 10-K SEC filing, determine if the bill is at least somewhat relevant to the company in terms of whether it could impact the company's bottom line if it was enacted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbill title:\nA bill to prohibit certain practices relating to certain commodity promotion programs, to require greater transparency by those programs, and for other purposes.\n\nbill summary:\nOpportunities for Fairness in Farming Act of 2019\n\nThis bill establishes restrictions and requirements for checkoff programs, which are programs overseen by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to promote and provide research and information for a particular agricultural commodity without reference to specific producers or brands.\n\nThe bill prohibits boards established to carry out a checkoff program or a USDA order issued under a checkoff program from entering into a contract or agreement to carry out program activities with a party that engages in activities to influence any government policy or action that relates to agriculture.\n\n A board or its employees or agents acting in their official capacity may not engage in any\n\n act that may involve a conflict of interest; anticompetitive activity; unfair or deceptive act or practice; or act that may be disparaging to, or in any way negatively portray, another agricultural commodity or product. Upon approval of USDA, a board may enter directly into contracts and agreements to carry out generic promotion, research, or other activities authorized by law if the agreement or contract requires records accounting for the funds received to be submitted to the board.\n\nThe board must meet specified requirements regarding the publication of budgets and disbursements of funds.\n\nThe USDA Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office must conduct specified audits regarding checkoff programs.\n\ncompany name:\n1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.\n\ncompany description:\nThe Company 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the \"Company\") is a leading provider of gifts for all celebratory occasions. For more than 40 years, 1-800-Flowers.com\u00ae has been delivering smiles to customers with gifts for every occasion, including fresh flowers and the best selection of plants, gift baskets, gourmet foods, confections, jewelry, candles, balloons and plush stuffed animals. The Company's Celebrations suite of services, including its Passport Free Shipping and Reminders programs, are all designed to engage with customers and deepen relationships as a one-stop destination for all celebratory and gifting occasions. This prestigious list, compiled annually by the National Retail Federation (NRF), ranks the nation's fastest-growing retailers by year-over-year domestic sales growth. The Company also received the Gold award in the \"Best Artificial Intelligence\" category at the Data & Marketing Association's 2017 International ECHO Awards.  international floral wire service provides a broad range of quality products and value-added services designed to help professional florists grow their businesses profitably. Inc. family of brands also includes everyday gifting and entertaining products such as premium, gift-quality fruits and other gourmet items from Harry & David\u00ae, popcorn and specialty treats from The Popcorn Factory\u00ae and Moose Munch\u00ae; cookies and baked gifts from Cheryl's\u00ae; gift baskets and towers from 1-800-Baskets.com\u00ae and DesignPac Gifts; premium English muffins and other breakfast treats from Wolferman's\u00ae; artisan chocolate and confections from Simply Chocolate\u00ae, carved fresh fruit arrangements from FruitBouquets.com; top quality steaks and chops from Stock Yards\u00ae and unique gifts from Personalization Universe\u00ae and Goodsey SM .  The Company and Ferrero also entered into a transition services agreement whereby the Company will provide certain post-closing services to Ferrero and Fannie May related to the business of Fannie May and a commercial agreement with respect to the distribution of certain Ferrero and Fannie May products. The Company's operations began in 1976 when James F. McCann, the Company's founder and current Executive Chairman of the Board, acquired a single retail florist in New York City, which he subsequently expanded to a 14-store chain. The Company acquired the right to use the toll-free telephone number 1-800-FLOWERS, adopted it as its corporate identity and began to aggressively build a national brand around it. In order to support the growth of its toll-free business and to provide superior customer service, the Company developed an operating infrastructure that incorporated the best available technologies. Over time, the Company implemented a sophisticated transaction processing system that facilitated rapid order entry and fulfillment, an advanced telecommunications system and multiple customer service centers to handle increasing call volume.  To enable the Company to deliver products reliably nationwide, on a same-day or next-day basis, and to market pre-selected, high-quality floral products, the Company created BloomNet\u00ae, a nationwide network including independent local florists selected for their high-quality products, superior customer service and order fulfillment and delivery capabilities.  1-800-FLOWERS.COM offers a broad range of truly original gifts through a multi-channel strategy, making it easy for millions of customers to deliver smiles for every occasion. Complementing its retail, telephonic and ecommerce channels, 1-800-FLOWERS.COM is a pacesetter in social and mobile platforms, pioneering award-winning marketing programs and applications. As a result, the Company has developed relationships with customers who purchase products for both a wide range of celebratory gifting occasions as well as for everyday personal use. The Company offers a broad selection of unique products that a customer could expect to find in a high-end florist and gift shop, including a wide assortment of cut flowers and plants, candy, balloons, plush toys, giftware, gourmet gift baskets, and fruit bouquet arrangements. The Company has also significantly expanded its presence in the gourmet food and gift baskets category, further complementing its gift assortment, through a combination of organic initiatives and strategic acquisitions. The addition of Harry & David in September 2014 accelerated the Company's strategy to leverage its leadership position built in the floral gifting category to create a leading position in the growing Gourmet Foods & Gift Baskets category.  -800-FLOWERS.COM's objective is to be the leading authority on thoughtful gifting, to serve an expanding range of our customers' celebratory needs, thereby helping our customers express themselves and connect with the important people in their lives. The Company believes that 1-800-FLOWERS.COM is one of the most recognized brands in the floral and gift industry. The strength of its brand has enabled the Company to extend its product offerings beyond the floral category into complementary products, which include gourmet popcorn, cookies and related baked and snack food products, premium chocolate and confections, wine gifts, gourmet gift baskets, fruit bouquet arrangements, and gift-quality fruit baskets, as well as steaks, chops and prepared meals. This extension of gift offerings helps our customers with all of their celebratory occasions, and will enable the Company to increase the number of purchases and the average order value by existing customers who have come to trust the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM brand, as well as continue to attract new customers. The Company's consolidated customer database and multi-brand website is designed to expose all of our brands to our customers, further enhancing the Company's position as a leading, one-stop destination for all of our customers' gifting and celebratory needs.  The Company's product offerings can be purchased through the Company's website via desktop or mobile devices, as well as through Alexa, Facebook Messenger, Google Assistant, Apple Business Chat, Samsung Chatbot, or Google Rich Business Messaging, to help guide customers to the perfect gift across our brands.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "corporate_lobbying:315", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "corporate_lobbying", "task_family": "corporate", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 315}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information for any purpose other than the purposes stated in Agreement.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe Confidential Information (as defined in Section 2), whether transmitted orally, in writing or in any other form, and whether prepared by a Party or its employees, agents, advisors or other representatives, shall be preserved in strict confidence by the receiving Party, shall not be disclosed, disseminated or distributed by the receiving Party other than as expressly authorized herein, and shall be used exclusively for the purposes or transactions contemplated by this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_limited_use:33", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_limited_use", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 33, "document_name": "Confidentiality_Non-Disclosure_Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 34\n\nParagraph:\nSection 11A of the Exchange Act empowers the Commission to, \u201cby rule or order, [ ] authorize or require self-regulatory organizations,\u201d including stock exchanges, \u201cto act jointly with respect to matters as to which they share authority under this chapter in planning, developing, operating, or regulating a national market system,\u201d known as an NMS. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78k-1(a)(3)(B); see also id. \u00a7 78c(a)(26) (\u201cThe term \u2018self-regulatory organization\u2019 means any national securities exchange, registered securities association, or registered clearing agency.\u201d). Commission regulations further provide that \u201c[e]very national securities exchange on which an NMS stock is traded and national securities association shall act jointly pursuant to one or more effective national market system plans to disseminate consolidated information, including a national best bid and national best offer, on quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks.\u201d 17 C.F.R. \u00a7 242.603(b). And although \u201c[a]ny two or more self-regulatory organizations, acting jointly, may file a national market system plan or may propose an amendment to an effective national market system plan,\u201d no such proposal, subject to limited exceptions, \u201cshall become effective unless approved by the Commission.\u201d Id. \u00a7 242.608(a)(1), (b)(1). Over the course of  *36  **408 several decades, the Commission has exercised this authority to approve three Equity Data Plans that now govern the dissemination of certain types of quotation and transaction information for publicly traded equity securities.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Facts", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:146", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 146}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, migrant work and benefits, and other issues faced by people who are not full citizens in the US?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nthrowaway username. Do parents have any recourse when their minor child is being courted by a MUCH older predator (30+years) if the child's age is of their state's age of consent - 16 NJ and 17 NY.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_immigration:118", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_immigration", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 118}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOn the issue of whether Sean knew he was going to die, the fact that he called his lawyer wanting to make final changes to his will.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:39", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 39, "slice": "Standard hearsay"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Imagine your are the New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. You've received the following question(s). Answer them as either \"Yes\" or \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIs it within the jurisdiction of this Committee to decide if a judge should conduct an inquiry into a potential conflict of interest arising from the prosecution of a criminal defense attorney?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "nys_judicial_ethics:186", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "nys_judicial_ethics", "task_family": "nys", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 186, "year": 2022}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n' we review do novo a district courts dismissal for failure to state a claim, viewing the allegations in the complaint as true. hughes v. lott, 350 f.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th cir. 2003). we also review de novo a district courts interpretation and application of a statute of limitations, foudy v. indian river cty. sheriffs office, 845 f.3d 1117, 1122 (11th cir. 2017).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:125", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 125}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe committee or administrator shall annually, not later than the fifteenth day of August, file with the board ofsupervisors an estimate of the several amounts necessary for the ensuing calendar year (a) to meet the payments with respect to the liability of participants required to be made by the county pursuant to section of this chapter, and (b) to pay the administrative expenses of the plan.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "proa:65", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 65}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOn the issue of whether Mary robbed the bank, the fact that Mary went to the bank in disguise.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:5", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 5, "slice": "Non-assertive conduct"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify which state/country's law governs the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nNeither Party may assign this Agreement or any of the rights hereunder or delegate any of its obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other Party, and any such attempted assignment shall be void, except that Bank of America or any permitted Bank of America assignee may assign any of its rights and obligations under this Agreement (including, without limitation, any individual Order) to any Bank of America Affiliate, the surviving corporation with or into which Bank of America or such assignee may merge or consolidate or an entity to which Bank of America or such assignee transfers all, or substantially all, of its business and assets.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_governing_law:550", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_governing_law", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 550, "document_name": "CardlyticsInc_20180112_S-1_EX-10.16_11002987_EX-10.16_Maintenance Agreement1.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAlex is being prosecuted for participation in a criminal conspiracy. To prove that Alex participated in the conspiracy, the prosecution's witness testifies that she heard Alex making plans to meet with his co-conspirators.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:50", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 50, "slice": "Standard hearsay"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Imagine your are the New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. You've received the following question(s). Answer them as either \"Yes\" or \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCan questions about past conduct, legal issues, conduct of another judge or interpretation of another judge's rulings be responded to?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "nys_judicial_ethics:151", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "nys_judicial_ethics", "task_family": "nys", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 151, "year": 2022}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSee Memorandum from U. S. Sentencing Commission to Supreme Court Library, dated June 8, 2000 (total number of eases sentenced under federal Sentencing Guidelines since 1989) (available in Clerk of Court\u2019s case file).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:987", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 987}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(2) such individual furnishes over one-half of the cost of maintaining such household during the taxable year, and\n\ndescription:\nAlice and Bob got married on April 5th, 2012. Alice and Bob have a son, Charlie, who was born on September 16th, 2017. Alice and Charlie live in a home for which Alice furnished 40% of the maintenance costs, since September 16th, 2017. Alice is entitled to a deduction for Charlie under section 151(c) for the years 2017 to 2019.\n\nquestion:\nSection 7703(b)(2) applies to Alice maintaining her home for the year 2018.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Contradiction", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:244", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 244, "case id": "s7703_b_2_neg", "text": "    (2) such individual furnishes over one-half of the cost of maintaining such household during the taxable year, and <br> Alice and Bob got married on April 5th, 2012. Alice and Bob have a son, Charlie, who was born on September 16th, 2017. Alice and Charlie live in a home for which Alice furnished 40% of the maintenance costs, since September 16th, 2017. Alice is entitled to a deduction for Charlie under section 151(c) for the years 2017 to 2019. <br> Section 7703(b)(2) applies to Alice maintaining her home for the year 2018."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause require consent or notice of a party if the contract is assigned to a third party?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date and, unless terminated under this Article, shall continue in effect until the Conversion Date (the \"Term\"); provided that, with respect to any LMG Tools identified in Exhibit A as having a license term beyond the Conversion Date, TAG's License to, and LMG's obligation to provide LMG Services for, such LMG Tools shall survive for the period specified in Exhibit A.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_anti-assignment:742", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_anti-assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 742, "document_name": "REGANHOLDINGCORP_03_31_2008-EX-10-LICENSE AND HOSTING AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, migrant work and benefits, and other issues faced by people who are not full citizens in the US?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI'm not exactly sure if this is the right thread for this, but I need some insight and don't know where else to go. My boyfriend and I went to hard summer this weekend, and on Saturday he got caught selling ecstasy pills and I got caught in the cross fire. Before entering the event he asking if I could bring in his ecstasy pills ( 7 pills , Oreos and jacks) for him, I said sure. We made it through security with the pills. About 15 mins later he asks for me to give him the pills , so I hand him the pills, and he walks towards the guy he was going to sell to. They do the sale and my boyfriend gets handcuffed immediately and seconds later I get handcuffed.  We got the exact same charges. Poss of controlled substance, transportation of controlled substance and conspiracy( 3 felonies). Now the only possible charge that is actually reasonable for me is possession because I did have his pills on me. The other 2 are complete BS because I was unaware of the sale and everything else. I literally just brought his pills inside the venue.  I really need some advice here on what to do. Does anyone know any good public defenders in San Bernardino ?   P.s. This was my first time in jail and ever getting arrested, I'm a full time college student and work full time Also please do not lecture me, I know I shouldn't even been around him if he was selling, I just didn't think about all the repercussions.  This is in San Bernardino California\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_immigration:123", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_immigration", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 123}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Imagine your are the New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. You've received the following question(s). Answer them as either \"Yes\" or \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCan a judge refer defendants to a defensive driving program if their spouse is an instructor, provided that the spouse will not instruct any defendants referred by the judge?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "nys_judicial_ethics:19", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "nys_judicial_ethics", "task_family": "nys", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 19, "year": 2010}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause give a party the right to audit the books, records, or physical locations of the counterparty to ensure compliance with the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWireless Links (WLI) warrants to the original end user purchaser (\"You\") that the Equipment will be free from defects in workmanship and materials (\"Limited Warranty\") for a period of one (1) year from the date of the purchase of the Equipment (the \"Warranty Period\").\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_audit_rights:998", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_audit_rights", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 998, "document_name": "VISIUMTECHNOLOGIES,INC_10_20_2004-EX-10.20-DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause give a party the right to audit the books, records, or physical locations of the counterparty to ensure compliance with the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOnce every twelve (12) months, 2TheMart through a CPA may inspect and audit such records to verify reports.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_audit_rights:541", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_audit_rights", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 541, "document_name": "2ThemartComInc_19990826_10-12G_EX-10.10_6700288_EX-10.10_Co-Branding Agreement_ Agency Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nCould you take just a minute to set out just more specifically why the agency could not consider these constitutional claims within its structure? What -- I think you have to start by saying what it actually does and what would be reviewed at the appellate level after the agency issues an order.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Background", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:10", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-86", "index": 10}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify a cap on liability upon the breach of a party\u2019s obligation? This includes time limitation for the counterparty to bring claims or maximum amount for recovery.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCompany is not liable for incidental, special or consequential damages for any reason (including loss of data or other business or property damage), even if foreseeable or if MA or Customer has advised of such a claim.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_cap_on_liability:348", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_cap_on_liability", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 348, "document_name": "CybergyHoldingsInc_20140520_10-Q_EX-10.27_8605784_EX-10.27_Affiliate Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party may share some Confidential Information with some third-parties (including consultants, agents and professional advisors).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nA. \"Confidential Information\" of a party shall mean any trade secrets, know-how, inventions, products, designs, methods, techniques, systems, processes, software programs, works of authorship, business plans, customer lists, projects, plans, pricing, proposals and any other information which a party discloses to the Recipient Party that:  (i) if disclosed in writing is clearly marked as confidential or carries a similar legend; or  (ii) if disclosed verbally or in tangible form is identified as confidential at the time of disclosure, then summarized in a writing so marked by the Disclosing Party and delivered to the Recipient Party with fifteen (15) days.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties:98", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 98, "document_name": "1120792_0001019687-05-002206_morgan_10qex5-2.txt"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose whether the retail seller or manufacturer provides training to employees on human trafficking and slavery? Broad policies such as ongoing dialogue on mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery, or increasing managers' and purchasers' knowledge about health, safety and labor practices, qualify as training. Providing training to contractors who failed to comply with human trafficking laws counts as training.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCalifornia Human Trafficking in the Supply Chain Disclosure - CA SB 657\n\nGameStop is committed to conducting its business on the principles of integrity and sound business ethics. We are also committed to holding our manufacturers, vendors and suppliers to these same principles, which include taking measures to ensure that parties we do business with maintain basic labor and human rights standards for their workers.\n\nTo this end, GameStop has established a Code of Conduct to which each contract manufacturer for exclusive-branded products must adhere. The Code of Conduct represents GameStop's commitment to source this merchandise from persons and firms that strive to maintain comprehensive corporate responsibility programs and adhere to GameStop's expectations regarding human trafficking, forced labor and a variety of other important issues. Specifically, our Code of Conduct prohibits these manufacturers from utilizing any form of forced labor, whether in the form of child labor, prison labor, bonded labor, indentured labor or otherwise. Manufacturers we contract with who fail to meet these standards would be in breach of our agreement. We also require manufacturers we contract with to ensure their subcontractors adhere to our Code of Conduct.\n\nMembers of our direct import and merchandising teams personally visit the factories where our exclusive-branded products are produced. In addition, we have in the past, and will continue to in the future, engage a third party to perform scheduled factory audits of our manufacturing vendors to ensure they are operating within the parameters of our Code of Conduct. These audits will continue on a periodic basis for as long as we do business with each of these manufacturers.\n\nIn addition to the above, each contract manufacturer is required to independently maintain sufficient documentation of its compliance with our Code of Conduct. GameStop will quickly investigate any reports of human trafficking anywhere in its supply chain, and will take swift action against any supplier that is found to have acted improperly. While contract manufacturers are not required to certify that all materials incorporated into the products they produce comply with laws regarding slavery and human trafficking, both these suppliers and their subcontractors must adhere to the Code of Conduct and certify that all their operations are completely free of any form of child labor, prison labor, bonded labor, indentured labor or otherwise.\n\nIn addition, all GameStop merchandising employees who maintain relationships with vendors are required to adhere to the GameStop Code of Standards, Ethics and Conduct. The Code of Standards, Ethics and Conduct requires all employees to observe high ethical standards in the performance of their jobs and in their relationships with customers, vendors, their community, and their coworkers. Failure by an employee to follow the standards set forth in the Code of Standards, Ethics and Conduct may subject such employee to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training:307", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 307}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Imagine your are the New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. You've received the following question(s). Answer them as either \"Yes\" or \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCan a part-time judge serve as a deputy district executive in the same judicial district?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "nys_judicial_ethics:98", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "nys_judicial_ethics", "task_family": "nys", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 98, "year": 2022}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause give a party the right to audit the books, records, or physical locations of the counterparty to ensure compliance with the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSubject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Company hereby grants to Allscripts and its Affiliates a non- exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable [***] non-transferable (except in accordance with Section 28.4), sublicensable (through multiple levels of sublicensees), fully paid-up right and license under all of the Company's Intellectual Property to, throughout the Territory, access, use, reproduce, perform, display, modify, create derivative works of, transmit, demonstrate, test, operate, port, configure, distribute, and make available the Installed Software and Subscription Software Services\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_audit_rights:1087", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_audit_rights", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1087, "document_name": "PHREESIA,INC_05_28_2019-EX-10.18-STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues that arise within a family, like divorce, adoption, name change, guardianship, domestic violence, child custody, and other issues?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI don't want him to go to jail. I didn't think it would result in criminal charges.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_family:43", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_family", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 43}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAna is a lawyer who resides in Texas. While visiting Louisiana, she meets David, who runs a bike shop. She buys a bike from him and uses it to bike back to Texas. Right after she crosses the border, the bike seat explodes, injuring Ana. Ana sues David in Texas.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "personal_jurisdiction:15", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "personal_jurisdiction", "task_family": "personal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 15, "slice": "No contacts, no nexus."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information is protected?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIf you become aware of a security issue, please email us at legal [at] gawker [dot] com. We will work with you to address any problems.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_data_security:264", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_data_security", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 264}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause require consent or notice of a party if the contract is assigned to a third party?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement may not be assigned by either party hereto without the written consent of the other but shall be binding upon the successors of the parties.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_anti-assignment:163", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_anti-assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 163, "document_name": "ON4COMMUNICATIONSINC_07_02_2009-EX-10.1-PROMOTION AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause require consent or notice of a party if the contract is assigned to a third party?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nUpon termination of this Agreement, other than by reason of a termination for material breach due to a breach by HSNS pursuant to Section 12.1 (\"Term and Termination\"), (i) HSNS shall have the right to access and use the Application solely to provide Outsourcing Services, but only to the extent necessary to provide Outsourcing Services through the remaining unexpired term of an applicable Agreement with the Outsourcing Customer (without renewal following the termination of this Agreement), but in any extent not beyond twelve (12) months from the effective date of termination.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_anti-assignment:698", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_anti-assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 698, "document_name": "OASYSMOBILE,INC_07_05_2001-EX-10.17-OUTSOURCING AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information may be shared with or collected by third parties?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n3. Do we disclose the information we collect to outside parties? Comments, email and chat session participation. If you respond with information including feedback and data, such as questions, comments, suggestions, names, town of residence, or the like, such information is deemed to be non-confidential and we have no obligation of any kind with respect to such information and we are free to reproduce, use, disclose and distribute the information to any third party without limitation. We are free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in such information for any purpose whatsoever including but not limited to writing and publishing articles and other materials incorporating such information.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection:1902", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1902}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(C) $3,000 in any other case.\n\ndescription:\nIn 2017, Alice was paid $33200. Alice and Bob have been married since Feb 3rd, 2017, and they file a joint return for 2017.\n\nquestion:\nUnder section 63(c)(2)(C), Alice's basic standard deduction in 2017 is equal to $4400.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Contradiction", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:158", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 158, "case id": "s63_c_2_C_neg", "text": "        (C) $3,000 in any other case. <br> In 2017, Alice was paid $33200. Alice and Bob have been married since Feb 3rd, 2017, and they file a joint return for 2017. <br> Under section 63(c)(2)(C), Alice's basic standard deduction in 2017 is equal to $4400."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with accessing health services, paying for medical care, getting public benefits for health care, protecting one's rights in medical settings, and other issues related to health?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI'm currently trying to get a divorce in Hawaii. My ex moved back to the mainland back in 2015, so this has been a wild ride. I've pushed for her to sign all the papers since early 2016, and she finally has sent all the documents *except* the appearance and waiver. Now she's gone no contact despite saying she would send the last document. She hasn't replied to any of my emails since June 1st. I'm kind of in a hurry now because I'm gone until September and then leaving to go overseas with the military in October for over 6 months. I'm not able to use the military legal services because she can't, which is a whole other story.  My question is, can a judge grant the divorce without this *one* paper? Do I have to get a lawyer involved? If I do have to get a lawyer and we can't get this figured out before I leave, will I not be able to finish it until I get back?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_health:173", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_health", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 173}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\naccordingly, the relevance of ossorio's testimony with respect to the prejudice prong of strickland is substantially less than is typically the case with credible alibi evidence.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:2314", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 2314}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that all Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n(a) \"Confidential Information\" means nonpublic information that a party to this Agreement (\"Disclosing Party\") designates as being confidential to the party that receives such information (\"Receiving Party\") or which, under the circumstances surrounding disclosure ought to be treated as confidential by the Receiving Party.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_explicit_identification:18", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_explicit_identification", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 18, "document_name": "1125892_0000950133-00-004441_w41075a1ex10-7.txt"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAna is a lawyer who resides in Texas. While visiting Louisiana, she meets David, who runs a bike shop. David is actually a citizen of Georgia, but spends a lot of time in Louisiana to run his shop. Ana buys a bike from David and uses it to bike back to Texas. Right after she crosses the border, the bike seat explodes, injuring Ana. Ana sues David in Georgia.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "personal_jurisdiction:10", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "personal_jurisdiction", "task_family": "personal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 10, "slice": "Yes contacts, yes nexus."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose whether the retail seller or manufacturer provides training to employees on human trafficking and slavery? Broad policies such as ongoing dialogue on mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery, or increasing managers' and purchasers' knowledge about health, safety and labor practices, qualify as training. Providing training to contractors who failed to comply with human trafficking laws counts as training.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCalifornia Transparency in Supply Chains Act\n\n\n\nFoot Locker supports the goals of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010. We outline our actions to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from our direct supply chains below:\n\n\n\nFoot Locker reserves the right to make periodic, unannounced inspections of our private label suppliers' facilities to verify each supplier\u2019s compliance with our Global Sourcing Guidelines and other requirements. Such on-site inspections are conducted by our internal team or by a third party company, and Foot Locker reserves the right to terminate the relationship with any supplier who fails to comply with our requirements. Private label suppliers affirm that, by accepting orders from Foot Locker, they will manufacture products in accordance with local labor and employment laws, under working conditions that meet certain standards, and without the use of forced labor.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training:303", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 303}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with accessing health services, paying for medical care, getting public benefits for health care, protecting one's rights in medical settings, and other issues related to health?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nLast year, I went in to a California urgent care center because I ended up having strep throat. I gave them my Aetna PPO insurance, paid the $75 copay, and then went on my merry way to the pharmacy. This was about a year ago.  I did a credit report check recently, and to my surprise a $200 bill had been placed into collections over 6 months ago, with the urgent care center listed as the original account holder. So I call this urgent care, which is located in a small shopping mall and is not attached to a hospital or any other medical offices. The receptionist pulls up my account and tells me that she sees that I paid the copay, but that they have nothing to do with further billing, as they send all their claims to a contracted medical billing office for insurance collection, which is apparently the standard in the industry. She kindly gives me their medical billing company's phone number, apologizes, and says she has \"not heard positive things\" about them. Great.  So I call the medical billing office explaining that their buddy, the urgent care center, sent me to them with my qualms about this phantom $200 medical bill. She looked me up by my name and birthday, and said that yes, they did send that amount to Stanislaus Credit Control Agency after four unsuccessful attempts to contact me. Interestingly enough, the main offices for both Stanislaus and this medical billing company are both located in Modesto, CA. Anyway, the lady says this is a result of me not reaching my insurance deductible, and that this $200 was the amount my insurance, Aetna, would not cover for the urgent care visit. I thought that sounded legitimate so I eased my tone and said thanks for clearing that up.  However, I now believe she was giving me a pre-scripted run-around. I call Aetna to ask what my deductible would be for an urgent care visit. **Aetna says there is no deductible for urgent care visits, only a copay.** I ask them to look up the claim for this urgent care visit, as the urgent care center has my Aetna insurance policy on file. **Aetna has no record of any claim for any urgent care center on my behalf.**   My Aetna customer service guy says hold on, he will personally call this medical billing office. I stay on the line listening to the provided elevator music, and he comes back reporting that the person who is in control of my account is apparently not in the office today, a Monday afternoon at 2pm. I ask my Aetna customer service guy if he thinks that sounds shady. He agrees, and says he personally will try again tomorrow and get back to me. I google the urgent care center on Google, and there are already four negative reviews mentioning surprise letters from collections agencies.  Are any/all of these companies in cahoots with each other to make money from collections, instead of correctly filing a claim with Aetna? I am still waiting to hear back, as this Nancy Drew stuff all went down today. Thanks in advance for any theories.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_health:103", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_health", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 103}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n725 f.3d at 1207 (citing to 40 c.f.r.  122.26(d)(2)(i)(f) (regarding municipal storm water discharges)).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:2156", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 2156}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with paying your rent or mortgage, landlord-tenant issues, housing subsidies and public housing, eviction, and other problems with your apartment, mobile home, or house?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nLong story short, lived here 7 years, getting ready to build a privacy fence.  Got an overhead shot of the property lines from the bank and my lot extends 6 feet past where my neighbor believes (I assume) the line is.  He has 2 sheds, 30' fence, and 2 feet of a driveway extension in this zone.  Main question is in what order should I call a lawyer, get it surveyed, and contact my neighbor about negotiating?  The total area of this oversight is about 1000 square feet, or about 6% of my total property.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_housing:241", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_housing", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 241}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information for any purpose other than the purposes stated in Agreement.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n(a) Confidential Information of each party (\u201cDisclosing Party\u201d) may be used by the other party (\u201cReceiving Party\u201d) solely for the purpose of fulfilling obligatons and activities within the scope of the Parties mutual cooperation and must not be used for any other purpose (\u201cPurpose\u201d).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_limited_use:21", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_limited_use", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 21, "document_name": "amc-general-mutual-non-disclosure-agreement-en-gb.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 12\n\nParagraph:\nThe union also assails the Board's explanation that it needed a new remedy to save employers from a dilemma.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Analysis", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:57", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 57}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Is there a requirement for insurance that must be maintained by one party for the benefit of the counterparty?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAdditional certificates evidencing the insurance required by Section 15.1 above must name us, and each of our affiliates, directors, agents, and employees, as additional insured parties, and must expressly provide that any interest of same therein will not be affected by any breach by you of any policy provisions for which such certificates evidence coverage.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_insurance:500", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_insurance", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 500, "document_name": "GOOSEHEADINSURANCE,INC_04_02_2018-EX-10.6-Franchise Agreement.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIn fact the trial judge conceded, \u201cI certainly don\u2019t dispute that it could be shown that there was a custom and usage of discrimination in the past.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:737", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 737}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Do the following opinion excerpts rely on statistical evidence? Answer Yes or No.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe Court finds this argument persuasive and agrees that as a matter of law, those three officers cannot be considered mutually exclusive. HN12 In order for the plaintiff to be considered similarly situated to the other officers, he is \"required to demonstrate that all of the relevant aspects of [his] employment situation were 'nearly identical' to those of the [the other officers].\" Neuren v. Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill, 43 F.3d 1507, 1514, 310 U.S. App. D.C. 82 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That the plaintiff did not pursue arbitration constitutes a major difference. Chief Pavlik attests that under his watch no officers, who were previously terminated, were reinstated unless he was ordered to do so by an arbitrator. Plaintiff argues that the \"union let [his] case fall by the wayside.\" ECF No. 24-2, pg. 13. But  [*82]  even if true, that has no bearing on this analysis. The plaintiff's claims allege that WMATA officials treated him disparately from other officers by not reinstating him, not that his union representatives treated him poorly. It is also important to note another difference between the plaintiff and M.S., S.B., and N.M. Those three officers were terminated based on violations of internal policies not because [**14]  they were criminally convicted, as the plaintiff was in this case.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "legal_reasoning_causality:51", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "legal_reasoning_causality", "task_family": "legal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 51}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nEvelyn is from Louisiana. Henry is from Connecticut. Evelyn sues Henry for legal malpractice for $32,000.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "diversity_1:219", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "diversity_1", "task_family": "diversity", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 219, "parties_are_diverse": true, "aic_is_met": false}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nA law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "proa:86", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 86}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nBy its clear language, Article Seventh creates a right for citizen landowners to have some access to the River territory by, for example, the construction of improvements appurtenant to the shore.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:924", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 924}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe attorney general may bring an action in  for injunctive relief, costs, and attorney's fees and may impose on a manufacturer that violates this section a civil penalty of no more than $10,000.00 per violation. Each unlawful gift shall constitute a separate violation.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "proa:87", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 87}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHarper is from Iowa. Evelyn is from West Virginia. Harper sues Evelyn for trespass for $9,778,000.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "diversity_1:146", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "diversity_1", "task_family": "diversity", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 146, "parties_are_diverse": true, "aic_is_met": true}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does intellectual property created by one party become the property of the counterparty, either per the terms of the contract or upon the occurrence of certain events?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nFor so long as ETI remains a Subsidiary ----------------------- of NTL, it is the intention of ETI that the terms of the Source Code License be no less favourable to Nortel than the terms then in effect with any of Entrust's source code licensees that receives substantially similar rights taking into account the relative size of the licensee and Entrust's potential benefits.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment:544", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 544, "document_name": "ENTRUSTINC_07_24_1998-EX-10.5-STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: You are a lobbyist analyzing Congressional bills for their impacts on companies. Given the title and summary of the bill, plus information on the company from its 10-K SEC filing, determine if the bill is at least somewhat relevant to the company in terms of whether it could impact the company's bottom line if it was enacted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbill title:\nTo provide for a national strategy to address and overcome Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases, and for other purposes.\n\nbill summary:\nNational Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Control and Accountability Act of 2019\n\nThis bill establishes the Office of Oversight and Coordination for Tick-Borne Diseases within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The office must oversee the creation of a national strategy to address Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases and disorders. The national strategy must include program assessments, benchmarks for progress, and recommendations from the previously established Tick-Borne Disease Working Group.\n\nThe bill also requires HHS to undertake specific actions that promote research, prevention, and treatment of Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases and disorders. Among other things, HHS must:\n\n support expansive research into the pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of such diseases and disorders; establish a surveillance system to track the prevalence of such diseases and disorders in humans; establish a surveillance system to track the prevalence of disease-carrying ticks; conduct educational campaigns; and hold a series of research symposiums.\n\ncompany name:\nAccelerate Diagnostics, Inc.\n\ncompany description:\nInc. (\"Accelerate\") is an in vitro diagnostics company dedicated to providing solutions that improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare costs through the rapid diagnosis of serious infections. Microbiology laboratories are in need of new tools to address what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls one of the most serious healthcare threats of our time, antibiotic resistance. A significant contributing factor to the rise of resistance is the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, which is exacerbated by a lack of timely diagnostic results. The delay of identification and antibiotic susceptibility results is often due to the reliance by microbiology laboratories on traditional culture-based tests that often take two to three days to complete. Our technology platform is built to address these challenges by delivering significantly faster and more accurate testing of infectious pathogens in various patient sample types.  Since 2004, we have focused our efforts on the research, development, and commercialization of an innovative rapid diagnostic platform, the Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system. The Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system utilizes genotypic technology to identify (ID) infectious pathogens and phenotypic technology to conduct antibiotic susceptibility testing, (AST) which determines whether live bacterial and fungal cells are resistant or susceptible to a particular antibiotic. The Accelerate PhenoTest\u2122 BC Kit provides ID and AST results for patients suspected of bacteremia or fungemia, both life-threatening conditions with high morbidity and mortality risk. The Accelerate PhenoTest\u2122 BC Kit is a highly multiplexed panel targeting over 80% of the routine and significant pathogens causing blood stream infections and over 90% of the antibiotics useful in treating those pathogens.  In Vitro Diagnostic Directive 98/79 EC and applied a CE Mark to the Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system and the Accelerate PhenoTest\u2122 BC Kit for in vitro diagnostic use. On February 23, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\"FDA\") granted our de novo request to market our Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system and Accelerate PhenoTest\u2122 BC Kit.  In 2017, we began selling the Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system in hospitals in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. Consistent with the Company's business model revenues were generated from the sale of the instrument and the sale of single use consumable test kits.  From 2001 to 2012, we focused primarily upon furthering the research and development of the OpTest portfolio of technologies (\"OpTest\") that we acquired from DDx, Inc. in 2001 and the development of revenue producing products related to that technology. The purchase of OpTest provided us with a proprietary surface chemistry formulation, which led to our OptiChem and other surface chemistry products, and quantitative bio-analytical measurement instruments.  In 2012, our Board of Directors and management team established a new strategic direction for the Company, which was (1) to focus on the internal development, manufacture, and commercialization of the Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system and (2) to discontinue efforts to develop and actively market OptiChem and our other surface chemistry products. Our Board of Directors and management team decided to pursue this new strategic direction based on the belief that we could internally develop and commercialize the Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system, formerly called the BacCel System.  Since the adoption of the new strategic direction in 2012, we have made significant investments in research and development personnel, facilities, equipment, and consumables to support the internal development of the Accelerate Pheno\u2122 system. The Company has also invested in the hiring of regulatory, manufacturing, quality, sales, and marketing personnel experienced in the manufacture and commercialization of medical devices.  In August 2013, the Company completed a rights offering that raised gross proceeds of $20.0 million. In April 2014, the Company completed a rights offering that raised gross proceeds of $45.0 million. Antibiotic resistance has a significant healthcare impact, costing the U.S. an estimated $55 billion per year in healthcare and productivity costs. This estimate includes $20 billion in direct costs and $35 billion in indirect costs, such as lost productivity and sick days. Increasing infection rates and misuse of antibiotics results in serious treatment complications. Recent studies have shown that the number of hospital-acquired infections in the United States ranges from 214,700 to 1.4 million per year, contributing to an estimated 75,000 deaths per year.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "corporate_lobbying:73", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "corporate_lobbying", "task_family": "corporate", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 73}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause restrict the ability of a party to compete with the counterparty or operate in a certain geography or business or technology sector?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThroughout the Term and for a period of six (6) months after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, neither XSPA nor any of its affiliates shall, directly or indirectly, sell, offer for sale, market or promote any digital meditation or digital sleep products (other than the Products), including online or in any Store in the Territory, without the express prior written consent of Calm.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_non-compete:184", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_non-compete", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 184, "document_name": "XpresspaGroupInc_20190401_10-K_EX-10.28_11599457_EX-10.28_Marketing Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\ngiven the plain and unambiguous language of the statute and the absence of any extraordinary contrary legislative history which suggests that we should deviate from the text, we are compelled to conclude that other than the threshold showing that the agency in question received more than $10,000 in federal benefits in any one-year period, 666 imposes no requirement that there be a connection between the offense conduct and the federal funds. see morgan, 230 f.3d at 1073 (bye, j., concurring) (concluding that a federal nexus requirement should not be read into 666 on the grounds that the court should not inject elements into plain and unambiguous statutes); george d. brown, stealth statute corruption, the spending power, and the rise of 18 u.s.c. 666, 73 notre dame l.rev. 247, 280-81 (1998) ([i]t is impossible to deny that the actual statute is the antithesis of narrow. fairly read, it gives the federal government authority to deal with a range of malfeasance anywhere within governmental ... entities that benefit from a variety of programs, whether or not the wrongdoing is connected to the federal assistance.).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:47", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 47}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with paying your rent or mortgage, landlord-tenant issues, housing subsidies and public housing, eviction, and other problems with your apartment, mobile home, or house?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMy 3 former roommates and I recently moved out of a our Baltimore City row-house. Our landlord and property manager withheld $1,000 of $2,700 from our security deposit. The remaining balance + interest was returned to us 46 days (MD law states the deposit must be returned within 45 days) past our lease end-date with the reason listed as \"General Damages.\" We requested an itemized breakdown which we did not received until ~60 days past our lease end-date.   I've quoted the law several times and have attempted to negotiate the return of at least a portion of the remaining deposit to no avail. Unfortunately, my roommates and I not having a great relationship combined with one of them being out-of-state has made any group action difficult. This has lead me to a few questions:  1) Can I sue as an individual? If so, can I claim $1,000 as damages or, since we split the returned portion of the deposit, only the balance owed to me personally? 2) If we deposit the returned portion of the security deposit am I/we giving up the right to sue for the remaining balance? 3) In general, what are my chances of success? If we were one person or collectively filed a claim, it seems pretty clear-cut that our landlord and property manager are in violation of the law. Am I missing something.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_housing:276", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_housing", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 276}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information may be shared with or collected by third parties?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSocial Media Our Sites may provide you with the ability to register, log into, \"like\" or otherwise interact with third party social media services, including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, YouTube, and other social media services. These features may enable integration and/or access to your social media accounts. We do not control these social media services or your profiles on these services, and we do not establish privacy settings or rules for how your personal information on these services will be used. If you choose to log on to or submit information through any of these social media services, your personal information will be subject to the applicable social media service's terms and conditions and your current privacy settings on such social media service. By accessing any social media service, you will be assuming the risk that the personal information you provide on that service may be viewed and/or used by third parties for any purpose. You agree that we are not responsible for any acts or omissions by these social media service providers.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection:1748", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1748}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues related to working at a job, including discrimination and harassment, worker's compensation, workers rights, unions, getting paid, pensions, being fired, and more?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nRecently (a month) I accepted a job that I am very unhappy at and know will not work out for me in the long run. I am an at will employee and both the offer letter and the employee handbook mentions that management requires 14 days notice in case of quitting. Now would i be in any legal trouble if I quit immediately?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_employment:276", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_employment", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 276}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information is protected?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nInformation Collected by Third Parties Some of the services and advertisements included in the SIDEARM Services, including on our Web Sites and within our mobile apps, are delivered or served by third-party companies. These companies may place or recognize cookies, Web beacons or other technology to track certain non-personal information about our website users. For example, in the course of serving certain advertisements, an advertiser may place or recognize a unique cookie on your browser in order to collect certain information about your use of the SIDEARM Services. In many cases, this information could be used to show you ads on other websites based on your interests.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_data_security:400", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_data_security", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 400}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause restrict the ability of a party to compete with the counterparty or operate in a certain geography or business or technology sector?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMember covenants and agrees that during the Post-Term Period (defined below), except as otherwise approved in writing by Franchisor, Member will not, either directly or indirectly, for itself, or through, on behalf of, or in conjunction with any person, persons, partnership, corporation, or entity, Member will not own, maintain, operate, engage in, be associated with or accept any compensation or remuneration from, or have any interest in or render services or give<omitted>advice to any Competitive Business and which business is, or is intended to be, located within the city or county in which the Approved Location is situated.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_non-compete:0", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_non-compete", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 0, "document_name": "GOOSEHEADINSURANCE,INC_04_02_2018-EX-10.6-Franchise Agreement.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify that one party can terminate this contract without cause (solely by giving a notice and allowing a waiting period to expire)?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to its principles of conflicts of law.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_termination_for_convenience:370", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_termination_for_convenience", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 370, "document_name": "PapaJohnsInternationalInc_20190617_8-K_EX-10.1_11707365_EX-10.1_Endorsement Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues related to working at a job, including discrimination and harassment, worker's compensation, workers rights, unions, getting paid, pensions, being fired, and more?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMy mom has been figured from her 20 year job because they say she no called no-showed.  For the last 3 years the company has been under new management.  It's been said amongst coworkers that there has been firing among anyone not young, fresh and modern to represents the companies new image. Out of everyone that worked there before management took over, now only a handful remain. Seasoned in their fields, they are all scared.  Should she seek a lawyer? Can they reject her of anything she has earned, such as Retirement, 401, etc? We're worried all of her commitments will be degraded.  By bullying I mean she has been harassed with text messages, people demanding her to come in on days she has scheduled PTO. Demanding her not to enjoy her days off and cover shifts.. just all around pressuring her to feel stressed and she feels bullied. Please advice   The company is a healthcare facility in NV. Please and thank you for sharing anything we should be aware of moving forward.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_employment:67", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_employment", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 67}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement does not apply to information that: iii. was received by Recipient from a third party and Recipient was not aware that the third party had a duty of confidentiality to Discloser in respect of the information;\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement:56", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 56, "document_name": "Template-NDA-2-way-final-1.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: You are a lobbyist analyzing Congressional bills for their impacts on companies. Given the title and summary of the bill, plus information on the company from its 10-K SEC filing, determine if the bill is at least somewhat relevant to the company in terms of whether it could impact the company's bottom line if it was enacted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbill title:\nA bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a new tax credit and grant program to stimulate investment and healthy nutrition options in food deserts, and for other purposes.\n\nbill summary:\nHealthy Food Access for All Americans Act \n\nThis bill allows tax credits and grants for activities that provide access to healthy food in food deserts, which are communities that have limited or no access to grocery stores and meet income requirements.\n\nFor entities that are certified by the Department of the Treasury as special access food providers using specified criteria, the bill allows tax credits for operating a new grocery store or renovating an existing grocery store in a food desert. The bill also authorizes grants for a portion of (1) the construction costs of building a permanent food bank in a food desert, and (2) the annual operating costs of temporary access merchants (mobile markets, farmers markets, and food banks).\n\nTreasury, in coordination with the Department of Agriculture (USDA), must annually allocate the tax credits and grants to special access food providers. Grants authorized by this bill are not considered gross income for tax purposes.\n\nThe bill also requires USDA to update the Food Access Research Atlas at least annually to account for food retailers that are placed in service during that year.\n\ncompany name:\nPinnacle Foods, Inc.\n\ncompany description:\nWe are a leading manufacturer, marketer and distributor of high-quality, branded food products in North America, with annual net sales of approximately $3.1 billion in fiscal 2017. Our brand portfolio enjoys strong household penetration in the United States (\"U.S.\"), where our products can be found in over 85% of U.S. households. Our products are sold through supermarkets, grocery wholesalers and distributors, mass merchandisers, super centers, convenience stores, dollar stores, natural and organic food stores, drug stores, e-commerce websites and warehouse clubs in the United States and Canada, as well as in military channels and foodservice locations. Pinnacle Foods Inc. is a holding company whose sole asset is 100% ownership of Peak Finance Holdings LLC (\"PFH\"). PFH is a holding company whose sole asset is 100% ownership of Pinnacle Foods Finance LLC.  The Company's business is organized into the following four reportable segments: The Frozen segment, The Grocery segment, The Boulder segment and The Specialty segment Frozen Segment  Birds Eye is the largest brand in the $3.3 billion frozen vegetables category, with a 31.9% market share. Government programs, such as the USDA's My Plate program, and nutrition and health professionals continue to identify increased vegetable consumption as a key to better health. We believe that enhancing the taste of vegetables and making them exceptionally convenient are keys to driving more vegetable consumption.  Birds Eye has taken a leadership role in increasing vegetable consumption, including encouraging children to eat more vegetables. We are supporters of the USDA's My Plate program and have engaged in breakthrough marketing efforts with major multi-media family entertainment partners to encourage children to eat more vegetables. We also compete in the frozen complete bagged meals category with our Birds Eye Voila!  frozen bagged meals provide consumers with a high quality complete meal, including protein, starch, and vegetables, that can be prepared in a skillet in just minutes.  Our Frozen segment also includes Hungry-Man frozen entr\u00e9es, Van de Kamp's and frozen prepared seafood, Lender's frozen and refrigerated bagels and Celeste frozen pizza. Grocery Segment Included in the Grocery segment is our Duncan Hines portfolio, which includes cake mixes, ready-to-serve frostings, brownie mixes, and cookie mixes. In addition to our traditional cake mix offerings, our cake mix portfolio also includes premium offerings under the Duncan Hines Decadent and Duncan Hines Perfect Size brands.  Duncan Hines is the #2 brand with a 28.9% market share in the $1.1 billion cake/brownie mix and frostings We compete in the shelf-stable salad dressings category with our Wish-Bone and Western brands, including our Wish-Bone E.V.O.O., Wish-Bone Ristorante Italiano and Wish-Bone Avocado Oil lines. We hold the #4 position in the $2.0 billion salad dressings category, with a combined share of 11.0%, and Wish-Bone holds the #1 position in the branded Italian segment of the category. Our Grocery segment also includes Armour, Nalley and Brooks canned meat, Mrs. Butterworth's and Log Cabin table syrups, Smart Balance premium margarine/spread, Comstock and Wilderness pie and pastry fruit fillings and Open Pit barbecue sauce.  The Grocery segment also includes a diversified portfolio of shelf-stable and refrigerated products including a complete line of shelf-stable pickle products, primarily under the nationally-distributed Vlasic brand, and the regional brands under the Milwaukee's and Wiejske Wyroby brands. Our Vlasic brand, represented by its trademark Vlasic stork, has the highest consumer awareness and quality ratings in the pickle category.  Vlasic is the #1 brand in the $790 million shelf-stable pickle category and Pinnacle pickle brands collectively hold a 34.3% market share.  We offer a portfolio of gluten-free products under the\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "corporate_lobbying:228", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "corporate_lobbying", "task_family": "corporate", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 228}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Is there a requirement for insurance that must be maintained by one party for the benefit of the counterparty?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, including, but not limited to, any chapter 11 or chapter 7 trustee; provided, however, that this Agreement may not be assigned by any of the Parties without the prior written consent of the other, provided further that notwithstanding the foregoing, GA and Tiger may each collaterally assign this Agreement and their rights thereunder to their respective lenders.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_insurance:515", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_insurance", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 515, "document_name": "BONTONSTORESINC_04_20_2018-EX-99.3-AGENCY AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nNotwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Section 6.04, no Loan Party shall make any Investment in any Subsidiary (other than another Loan Party) or any Unrestricted Subsidiary if the consideration paid by such Loan Party to such Subsidiary (other than a Loan Party) or such Unrestricted Subsidiary in respect of such Investment constitutes Material Intellectual Property; provided that nothing in this sentence shall prohibit any non-exclusive (other than exclusive distribution or other similar within a specified jurisdiction) license or sublicense of Material Intellectual Property to, or use of Material Intellectual Property by, any Subsidiary or Unrestricted Subsidiary.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Section 6.06, no Loan Party shall make any Restricted Payment to any Subsidiary (other than another Loan Party) or any Unrestricted Subsidiary in the form of Material Intellectual Property? provided that nothing in this sentence shall prohibit any non-exclusive (other than exclusive distribution or other similar within a specified jurisdiction) license or sublicense of Material Intellectual Property to, or use of Material Intellectual Property by, any Subsidiary or Unrestricted Subsidiary.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "jcrew_blocker:37", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "jcrew_blocker", "task_family": "jcrew", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 37}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify a cap on liability upon the breach of a party\u2019s obligation? This includes time limitation for the counterparty to bring claims or maximum amount for recovery.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nFor clarity, if AbbVie does not exercise its License Option, Harpoon retains all rights under Harpoon's interests in the Joint Patents and the Joint Know-How, if any, to Exploit the Licensed Compounds and Licensed Products in its sole discretion without duty to account to AbbVie in connection with such use or Exploitation.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_cap_on_liability:740", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_cap_on_liability", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 740, "document_name": "HarpoonTherapeuticsInc_20200312_10-K_EX-10.18_12051356_EX-10.18_Development Agreement.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party may share some Confidential Information with some third-parties (including consultants, agents and professional advisors).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAll information learned or developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be \"Confidential Information\" as defined in this Agreement and shall be the property of State.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties:125", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 125, "document_name": "Attachment B - Intent to Propose and Non-Disclosure Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how and why a service provider collects user information?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOur Commitment to Data Security Food Allergy Research & Education implements physical, electronic, and managerial procedures to ensure that your personal information is protected at all times. Our servers are housed in an off-site, secured co-location facility. Employee access to personal information is strictly on a need-to-know basis. All employees are made aware of the Privacy Policy and of any updates or changes to it. Employees are reminded of the importance of protecting the privacy of our donors and Internet site users.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_first_party_collection_use:360", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_first_party_collection_use", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 360}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose whether the retail seller or manufacturer provides training to employees on human trafficking and slavery? Broad policies such as ongoing dialogue on mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery, or increasing managers' and purchasers' knowledge about health, safety and labor practices, qualify as training. Providing training to contractors who failed to comply with human trafficking laws counts as training.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAs a company handling a diverse range of products and services across the globe, ensuring that our supply chains operate sustainably is crucial to our business. In order to reflect this, MC stipulates its requirements through the \u2018Mitsubishi Corporation Policy for Sustainable Supply Chain Management\u2019, established originally in February 2008. MC and all its suppliers take the same fundamental position towards the themes addressed in the Policy, which include human and labor rights, anti-corruption and environmental conservation.\n\nCore Principles\n\nSince its foundation, Mitsubishi Corporation has adhered to three corporate principles which have guided its corporate philosophy and which place considerable emphasis on the importance of its corporate social responsibilities. Moreover, Mitsubishi Corporation's Corporate Standards of Conduct state that the company will develop its business activities in compliance with all relevant laws and international regulations and that it will act responsibly and respect the highest social standards. The Corporate Standards of Conduct also underline Mitsubishi Corporation's dedication to preserving the global environment and pursuing sustainable development through all aspects of its business activities.\n\nMitsubishi Corporation Policy for Sustainable Supply Chain Management Updated: December 2011\n\nPolicy\n\nMitsubishi Corporation (hereafter \u2018MC\u2019) strives to ensure that business is conducted responsibly throughout its supply chains. In order to convey this stance to suppliers, the company has established the \u201cMitsubishi Corporation Policy for Sustainable Supply Chain Management,\u201d which it expects all suppliers to understand, embrace and abide by.\n\n(1) Forced Labor\n\nSuppliers shall employ all employees of their own free will with no employee being subject to forced or bonded labor.\n\n(2) Child Labor\n\nSuppliers shall not employee people under the minimum legal working age of the country in question.\n\n(3) Safe and healthy Working Environments\n\nSuppliers shall work to provide employees with safe and healthy working environments.\n\n(4) Freedom of Association\n\nSuppliers shall respect the right of employees to associate freely and for these groups to negotiate working environments, wages and other matters with employers.\n\n(5) Discrimination\n\nSuppliers shall strive to ensure equal opportunities in the work place and shall not engage in discrimination with regard to recruitment and employment practices.\n\n(6) Abuse and Harassment\n\nSuppliers shall respect employees' human rights and must not tolerate abuse or any form of harassment.\n\n(7) Working Hours\n\nSuppliers shall ensure that employees' working hours and use of leave entitlements are appropriately monitored so as not to infringe upon any statutory regulations.\n\n(8) Suitable Remuneration\n\nSuppliers shall pay employees at least the statutory minimum wage and shall not unreasonably reduce wages.\n\n(9) Anti-corruption\n\nSuppliers shall engage in fair business practices, avoid corruption including bribery and extortion, and comply with applicable laws and regulations.\n\n(10) Environment\n\nSuppliers should work to protect the environment and will consider the environmental impact of their business activities on local communities and ecosystems.\n\n(11) Information Disclosure\n\nSuppliers shall disclose information with respect to the aforementioned matters in a timely and appropriate manner.\n\nMonitoring\n\nIn order to ensure that suppliers operate in accordance with the above Policy, MC requires suppliers to complete self-assessment questionnaires. In addition, the company conducts onsite evaluation of suppliers at random.\n\nNon-Compliances and Corrective Actions\n\nWhere MC identifies cases of non-compliance to the Policy, it communicates its remediation requirements to suppliers and provides support for redressing specific issues. MC reserves the right to disengage with suppliers who do not take appropriate measures to remedy non-compliance.\n\nSurveys and Site Monitoring\n\nMC conducts surveys of suppliers of a range of products, including those industries where CSR considerations are particularly impactful, such as agricultural produce and apparel.\n\nIn the fiscal year ending March 2014, replies were received from 199 companies in 34 countries and regions. Respondents answered questions pertaining to matters such as the existence of regulations and legal compliance; forced labor, child labor and prohibition of discrimination; environmental conservation; and information disclosure.\n\nNo particular problems were identified by this survey, but as a measure of assurance we have also begun site visits to key suppliers. In February 2013, we visited a shrimp hatchery company and a shrimp processing company in southern Thailand to inspect manufacturing work sites, interview management and monitor the CSR activities of each company.\n\nSupplier surveys and site visits provide a valuable opportunity to communicate MC's stance on CSR and environmental affairs and will therefore be conducted on an ongoing basis.\n\nMC conducts transactions with a large number of suppliers throughout the world. Moving forward, the company plans to continue efforts to ensure that its supply chain guidelines are well understood by overseas offices and MC Group companies, while eliciting the understanding and cooperation of suppliers on a global basis.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training:331", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 331}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains? The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nReal Mex Restaurants Policy: California Transparency in Supply Chains Act\n\nReal Mex Restaurants is committed to purchasing goods and services only from suppliers that strive to treat all employees fairly and maintain excellent labor practices. We uphold this commitment through the following policies:\n\nWe require every Real Mex supplier to sign a written statement verifying that they are not engaged in any type of human trafficking, human rights violations or other illegal or unfair labor practices. As part of this statement, the supplier must also verify that they are not purchasing or using any ingredients in their products that originates from a nation or source engaged in forced labor, human trafficking or other human rights violations. We keep these letters on file and require each vendor to restate their written commitment on an annual basis.\n\nIn all supplier contracts Real Mex reserves the right to verify the supplier\u2019s compliance with this human rights policy, in addition to our safety and quality standards, through surprise inspections of supplier facilities by Real Mex or third parties hired by Real Mex. Should any supplier found to be in violation of these standards, Real Mex intends to terminate that supplier\u2019s contract. Our standards are clearly communicated to each supplier prior to executing any new contracts.\n\nReal Mex Restaurants fully supports the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (SB 657) and through these steps works to ensure that its suppliers comply with both its spirit and legal requirements. The company\u2019s policy is to immediately investigate and address any information brought to its attention regarding any actions by a supplier that may be in violation of this Act.\n\nAmong the core values of Real Mex Restaurants are integrity, honesty and respect. Through the hiring, training and management of Real Mex employees we strive to enforce these values every day, ensuring that every person in our company is treated in accordance with federal, state, and local laws.\n\nAll Real Mex employees \u00a0who directly engage in supply chain management will be required to sign a document indicating that they fully understand and will follow these policies.\u00a0\n\n- See more at: http://www.lasbrisaslagunabeach.com/ctsca-policy.html#sthash.NUkuAS7y.dpuf\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits:71", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 71}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 65\n\nParagraph:\nDonna and Hurley contend that the Supreme Court's decision in Honeycutt v. United States, \u2013\u2013\u2013 U.S. \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013, 137 S. Ct. 1626, 198 L.Ed.2d 73 (2017), should be applied retroactively to invalidate the forfeiture judgments against them.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Conclusion", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:233", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 233}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information for any purpose other than the purposes stated in Agreement.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nDuring the Restricted Period and at all times thereafter, Seller Parties will keep and hold all Confidential Information (as hereinafter defined) in strict confidence, and will not use or disclose in any way any of such Confidential Information without the prior express written consent of the Buyer Parties.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_limited_use:67", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_limited_use", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 67, "document_name": "817516_0001014909-05-000102_exh99_4sept2005.txt"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, migrant work and benefits, and other issues faced by people who are not full citizens in the US?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHello!  I finished a degree program in Liberal Arts from a large college in Missouri back in 2012.  This was a *huge* accomplishment because back in 2009, my dad cut off my support. I dropped out of school and started working waiting tables, took night classes, finished an Associates at the local community college, and re-enrolled at the large university in 2010. I worked nights and went to school during the day to finish.  When I walked across that stage, I had done it all on my own. Great feeling, right?  Well, in my last semester, I was almost kicked out for non-payment. A financial aid officer had Mercy on my soul, and removed the hold on my account so I could graduate. I completed all my coursework, but my degree was never actually awarded. This is important for the actual question, which I'm getting to I swear y'all.  Anyway, I did a year of AmeriCorps service, and came away with a Segal Award for $5730. The balance I owe my university was originally $7500, but due to finance charges is $11k. However, they're willing to accept $9k and release my degree.  I was accepted into a Master's program to continue my work in Youth Education, but they wouldn't let me begin without my official transcript. People in my community fundraised for me, and I was able to get the remaining amount. Then the university refused to accept my AmeriCorps award, stating that it can not be used on a previous balance.  I have contacted the National Service hotline twice, and both times supervisors have stated that since my degree was never actually awarded, and the university would require me to re-enroll before awarding my degree, the balance would count as current. Additionally, the balance stays current as it accrues the finance charge every month.  At this point, I know I need to retain an attorney and just have them reach an agreement this way. I'm planning to seek out low cost legal services here in the Greater Boston area, hopefully via Harvard Law when their clinics start back up.  I'm curious what sort of letter needs to be drafted. What's reasonable to ask them to do? I want them to accept the award, and allow me to go on a payment plan for the remainder, and *hopefully* reduce the finance charges a little closer to the original balance. (I spent the gifted money on living expenses; I have a new baby and didn't have much of a choice since I couldn't begin my Master's program and use loan money from that for living expenses. Not ideal, I know, but I'm desperate.)  It should be noted that, in a last ditch effort, I sent the Provost a letter about 3 months ago, but never got a response back. The Provost makes like $375k a year, I doubt she could even begin to understand what I'm dealing with or cared at all.  **tl:dr University won't accept payment via an AmeriCorps award, won't release transcript, how do I negotiate with them?**\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_immigration:114", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_immigration", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 114}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Do the following opinion excerpts rely on statistical evidence? Answer Yes or No.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCarter contends the circumstances suggest discrimination because he was disciplined for conduct that Atrium's white employees engaged in with impunity. For example, he asserts he was disciplined for being on Facebook and using his cell phone at work and for failing to account for missing bills from the lobby cash drawer, while other white employees were not. But Carter acknowledges that he was fired over the hotel key incident, rather than as a result of these comparatively minor infractions. He has not presented evidence of any situation in which a white Atrium employee took a hotel room out of service, made a [**10]  key to it, and then allowed unregistered guests to gain possession of the key, without being fired as a result. Nor is there evidence of white Atrium employees engaging in comparably serious misconduct without experiencing similarly harsh employment consequences. As such, Carter has not shown that similarly situated employees outside of his protected class were treated more favorably than him after engaging in similar misconduct. See Pye, 641 F.3d 1019 (explaining that to be similarly situated employees must be \"involved in or accused of the same or similar conduct and . . . disciplined in different ways\" (cleaned up) (quoting Wimbley v. Cashion, 588 F.3d 959, 962 (8th Cir. 2009))). The record shows that the first of the three Assistant Front Office Managers Atrium hired was a former Atrium employee with a great track record at the company who had left to attend hospitality school. The second had an undergraduate degree in event management. And the third served as a Night Auditor at another hotel for five years, which both parties acknowledge represents management experience. In contrast, Carter had no formal hospitality or event management education, lacked management experience, and received a number of disciplinary write-ups from Atrium before being passed over [**13]  for promotion. In addition, the record shows that Atrium has hired Black men for the Assistant Front Office Manager position in the past. Even drawing all reasonable inferences in Carter's favor, after a careful review of the record we conclude that he has not presented evidence to show that Atrium's stated reason for declining to promote him was \"not the true reason,\" but rather a \"pretext for discrimination.\" Kim v. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046, 1056 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981)). Summary judgment on the failure to promote claim was warranted.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "legal_reasoning_causality:46", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "legal_reasoning_causality", "task_family": "legal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 46}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with paying your rent or mortgage, landlord-tenant issues, housing subsidies and public housing, eviction, and other problems with your apartment, mobile home, or house?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHi,  Thank you guys for taking the time to read this and help us out, we messed up! My girlfriend and I run a small business in BC, Canada. We needed scheduling software and she ended up going with a web platform she used to use at an old job, however, we really dont like it at all and we havent used it, but its costing us 100$ a month! The web service company is based out of New Jersey. Is there anything we can do to get out of this contract or break it by paying less than what they are asking?   I know Canada has some consumer protection laws, but I dont know if they are applicable in this situation. I've provided more details below:  She signed a 24 month contract and when we asked the company how to cancel they transferred us on the phone several times before saying they couldnt help us and then it took a few days before they finally emailed us the cancellation information. **To cancel the contract we would have to buy out our remaining term and pay them for all 24 months anyway**.   The communcation with the company has been awful, they emailed us completely incorrect information about our contract and how long it is then in the same email attached the actual contract she signed with the correct information. **In the email they say we signed the contract in 2014 when it was actually 2016 and the actual contract shows 2016 too . Here is the email:**  * \"After a review of your account, your company signed and committed to a one year monthly payment subscription agreement with WorkWave effective 9/4/2014.  Your signed agreement is attached for your convenience. Per the terms &amp; conditions of the agreement, cancellation will require a buyout of the nineteen remaining months of your contract. The contract balance at this time is $1,425.00 plus any applicable sales tax.\"    **Here is the wording of the actual contract:**  Prices include the use of the software, hosting your company\u2019s information, automatic software updates and data file backup. The monthly payment plan pricing is based on a 24 month subscription (with automatic renewal) as further set forth in this Purchase Order Agreement and the General Terms and Conditions referenced herein. At any point during the License Term, additional users may be added. The pro-rated amount of the additional user(s) will apply and be billed at the time such users are added upon between the parties. Customer's credit card shall be charged, and Customer agrees to pay each month, the actual concurrent user pricing fee. The ServiceCEO Solution shall be provided to Customer based on a subscription term of twelve (12) months from the Service Commencement Date (\u201cInitial Term\u201d). At the completion of the Initial Term, the Subscription Term shall renew automatically for successive twelve (12) month periods (each period a \u201cRenewal Term\u201d) unless either party gives written notice to the other party of its intent not to renew at least fortyfive (45) days prior to the end of the Initial Term or then current Renewal term. In the event that the customer terminates this agreement during the contract term, an early termination fee will be charged to the credit card on file in the month that the customer terminates this agreement. As detailed in the General Terms and Conditions, early termination fees shall be computed based on the monthly fees due multiplied by the number of months remaining in the Initial Term, or in the then current Renewal Term, as applicable. Customer hereby agrees that the provision of the ServiceCEO Web Edition Business Management Software Subscription, training, implementation services and support related thereto shall be governed by WorkWave's standard Terms of Use which are available for review at http://www.workwave.com/general-terms-and-conditions. The Terms of Use cannot be superseded, supplemented or replaced with any other terms unless such terms are specifically agreed to by WorkWave in writing\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_housing:2537", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_housing", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 2537}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose whether the retail seller or manufacturer provides training to employees on human trafficking and slavery? Broad policies such as ongoing dialogue on mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery, or increasing managers' and purchasers' knowledge about health, safety and labor practices, qualify as training. Providing training to contractors who failed to comply with human trafficking laws counts as training.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTransparency in the Supply Chain\n\n\n\nAs a manufacturer doing business in the state of California, California State law requires us to provide disclosure regarding our efforts to address the issue of slave labor and human trafficking in our supply chain.\n\n\n\nStanley Black & Decker is actively committed to eradicating human trafficking and slavery from its supply chain. Suppliers are prohibited from using prison, forced, or child labor, and must provide a work environment free from physical punishment of any kind. Rates of pay must comply with the national laws of the countries in which the suppliers do business. Employee work hours must be limited to those authorized by applicable laws, and employees must be properly compensated for overtime. All suppliers must respect the right of workers to freely associate and organize. Stanley Black & Decker\u2019s suppliers are not permitted to use bonded laborers. Suppliers\u2019 employees must be free to leave manufacturing facilities and not subject to unreasonable restrictions on their movements. Suppliers\u2019 employees must be free to terminate their employment at will.\n\n\n\nStanley Black & Decker trains its managers and employees concerning these standards and verification of compliance by suppliers. While no written certification of compliance is currently required from our suppliers, supplier compliance is ensured by annual supplier self-assessments, followed by on-site audits and requalification audits. These audits are conducted personally by Stanley Black & Decker auditing teams and include confidential employee interviews of individuals selected by Stanley Black & Decker. The audits are announced to the suppliers only with as much lead time as minimally necessary to ensure that all required documentation is available to the auditing team. These on-site audits include verification of time and pay records. Suppliers are rated for compliance with Stanley Black & Decker practices and standards. Deficiencies found during supplier audits can result in graduated penalties, ranging from requirements for corrective action plans and follow up audits to termination of the business relationship.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training:226", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 226}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Imagine your are the New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. You've received the following question(s). Answer them as either \"Yes\" or \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIf an attorney from the law firm where a judge's non-attorney child works appears in the judge's court, is the judge allowed to appoint attorneys from the same law firm to fiduciary positions?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "nys_judicial_ethics:129", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "nys_judicial_ethics", "task_family": "nys", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 129, "year": 2022}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(ii) $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900 if the taxable income is over $36,900 but not over $89,150;\n\ndescription:\nAlice is married under section 7703 for the year 2017. Alice files a joint return with her spouse for 2017. Alice's and her spouse's taxable income for the year 2017 is $42876.\n\nquestion:\nAlice and her spouse have to pay $7208 in taxes for the year 2017 under section 1(a)(ii).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Entailment", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:59", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 59, "case id": "s1_a_1_ii_pos", "text": "    (ii) $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900 if the taxable income is over $36,900 but not over $89,150; <br> Alice is married under section 7703 for the year 2017. Alice files a joint return with her spouse for 2017. Alice's and her spouse's taxable income for the year 2017 is $42876. <br> Alice and her spouse have to pay $7208 in taxes for the year 2017 under section 1(a)(ii)."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nBut they're not public accommodations in the same way.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Criticism", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:171", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-476", "index": 171}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues in the criminal system including when people are charged with crimes, go to a criminal trial, go to prison, or are a victim of a crime?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMy wife caught my 14 year old nephew molesting my 4 year old daughter last night. They were camping, and the kids were in a tent together.   They were naked and he was on top of her. My daughter said that he has been touching her, and that this is not the first time.   They are on their way to the children's hospital now. My wife said my daughter's labia is red, and that she says it hurts and hurts when she pees.   I am out of the damn country, on business.   I am curious to know what will potentially happen to my nephew. I want him to have consequences, but would prefer he get therapy or something.   I can't find much on a google search, it just looks like he will be charged with sexual assault and face a possibility of 10 years in jail.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_crime:121", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_crime", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 121}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nin muhammad, this court rejected a similar claim by an inmate that the clemency process was flawed and amounted to a denial of due process.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:1471", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1471}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify that one party can terminate this contract without cause (solely by giving a notice and allowing a waiting period to expire)?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIn addition to the rights of Bank of America set forth in this Section, (a) If Bank of America terminates any Product License Schedule for material default by Supplier prior to the Acceptance Date of the Software, Bank of America shall be entitled to a full refund, within thirty (30) calendar days after notice of termination, of all license fees, Maintenance Fees and other fees paid<omitted>hereunder; and (b) Bank of America may terminate Maintenance Services under any Product License Schedule or Order for convenience at any time, and Bank of America shall then have no obligation to pay any additional Maintenance Fees, other than for Maintenance Services performed through the date of termination.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_termination_for_convenience:95", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_termination_for_convenience", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 95, "document_name": "CardlyticsInc_20180112_S-1_EX-10.16_11002987_EX-10.16_Maintenance Agreement1.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\ngoodley v. sullivant, supra, 32 cal.app.3d 619, cited approvingly in westlake community hosp. v. superior court (1976) 17 cal.3d 465, 482 [ 131 cal.rptr. 90, 551 p.2d 410], is disapproved to the extent it is inconsistent with views expressed herein.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:775", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 775}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information for any purpose other than the purposes stated in Agreement.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nUpon the request of VIDAR or the termination or expiration of this Confidential Agreement, Receiver shall promptly return to VIDAR all copies of the Confidential Information and obtained by Receiver.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_limited_use:157", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_limited_use", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 157, "document_name": "18268-001%20Rev%20B%20Form%20Version%20in%20PDF.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify which state/country's law governs the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nUnless earlier terminated in accordance with this paragraph 7, this Agreement shall continue indefinitely.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_governing_law:508", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_governing_law", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 508, "document_name": "VARIABLESEPARATEACCOUNT_04_30_2014-EX-13.C-UNCONDITIONAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHoldco will not, and will not permit any Subsidiary to, transfer any Material Intellectual Property to any Affiliate of Holdco that is not a Loan Party, whether by means of a Disposition, an Investment or a Restricted Payment.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "jcrew_blocker:27", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "jcrew_blocker", "task_family": "jcrew", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 27}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues related to working at a job, including discrimination and harassment, worker's compensation, workers rights, unions, getting paid, pensions, being fired, and more?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOriginal post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/6pg3g8/md_tenant_brought_2_cats_to_my_condo_lease/  She informed me on Monday that she brought 2 cats into the property breaching the lease. I told her my realtor and I were coming to the property on Wednesday to inspect/assess the condo as it is going for sale. She changed the date because according to her she is traveling.  She is letting us in today for 5 minutes.   What are my legal resources if she becomes difficult with entry to the unit?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_employment:464", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_employment", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 464}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Is there a requirement for insurance that must be maintained by one party for the benefit of the counterparty?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe Parties agree that any and all intellectual property researched and developed, created and invented by the Parties (including their employees) in the course of performance of this Agreement shall be owned by Party B. For the purpose of this Article 12.3, \"Intellectual Property\" means the patent, patent application right, trademark, service mark, logo, image, trade name, internet domain name, design right, copyright (including copyright of computer software) and moral rights, database right, right of semiconductor design drawing, utility model, proprietary technology and other intellectual property that are registered and unregistered including those that have applied for registration, as well as all other rights or protection methods with same or similar effect on a global scope.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_insurance:846", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_insurance", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 846, "document_name": "TUNIUCORP_03_06_2014-EX-10-COOPERATION AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains? The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nJohnson Matthey Inc. - California Transparency in Supply Chain Act of 2010\n\nThe California Transparency in Supply Chain Act of 2010 (SB 657) (the \u201cAct\u201d) requires certain companies that manufacture or sell products in the state of California to disclose their efforts to address the issue of slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains. Specifically, the Act requires qualifying companies to indicate their efforts to:\n\nEngage in verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and slavery\n\nConduct audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains\n\nRequire direct suppliers to certify that materials incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business\n\nMaintain internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding slavery and trafficking\n\nProvide employees and management, who have direct responsibility for supply chain management, training on human trafficking and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chains of products.\n\nOur Response\n\nJohnson Matthey Inc. (\u201cJMI\u201d) is the only entity in the Johnson Matthey group that meets the Act\u2019s specifications for retail sellers and manufacturers. As of 1st January 2012, JMI does not have a formal program to address these issues. However, JMI's policy is to not transact business with any counterparties that directly or indirectly finance or benefit from slavery and human trafficking.\u00a0\n\nRead a signed copy of the policy (PDF). \n\nJohnson Matthey supports the principles defined within the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organization Core Conventions, including the conventions in relation to child labour, forced labour, non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining. \n\nThroughout its global operations and businesses, the Johnson Matthey group strives to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct and corporate responsibility worldwide to ensure it acts with integrity, transparency and care for the rights of the individual. \n\nThe group\u2019s principles are set out in the Business Integrity and Ethics Policy and issues are further safeguarded through corporate governance processes and monitoring by the Johnson Matthey Plc board and its committees. \n\nIn addition, the group\u2019s Ethical and Sustainable Procurement Policy provides clear guidance on various topics including those relating to the selection of suppliers, auditing against standards and ethical conduct with suppliers. \n\nFind Out More\n\nFind more about our governance in the Sustainability Governance section.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits:356", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 356}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(2).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAcme Record Exchange is a telemarketer subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Acme Record Exchange convinced a customer to join its \"Record of the Month\" subscription for a free, one month trial, but did not inform the customer that the subscription would automatically renew at $15 per month unless the customer cancelled. Is this a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "telemarketing_sales_rule:20", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "telemarketing_sales_rule", "task_family": "telemarketing", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 20}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains? The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSUPPLIER CODE OF CONDUCT\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\t\n\nNovatel Wireless continuously strives to deal with suppliers who are leaders in their industries and are willing to demonstrate a strong commitment to ensure that working conditions in the electronics industry supply chain are safe, that workers are treated with respect and dignity, and that business operations are environmentally responsible\n\n\n\nConsistent with Novatel Wireless\u2019s sustainability principles, the Supplier Code of Conduct outlines the company\u2019s expectations in regards to sustainability practices of its suppliers. By adopting this Supplier Code of Conduct, Novatel Wireless aims at promoting sustainable development and minimizing legal, financial and reputation risks. \n\n\n\nIn all their activities, suppliers must conduct business in full compliance with the laws, rules and regulations of the countries in which they operate in. Suppliers are encouraged to go beyond legal compliance, drawing upon internationally recognized standards and achieve certification status as indicated in each subsection of this code, in order to advance social and environmental responsibilities. When the country\u2019s laws and international standards address the same issues, we expect that the highest standards be applied.  \n\n\n\nSuppliers are expected to take all reasonable measures to ensure the respect of this Code across their entire business and within their own supply chains.\n\n\n\nThe Code is comprised of six sections. Section A addresses the management system components. Sections B, C, D and E outline Novatel Wireless\u2019s expectations in regards to Labor, Ethics, Health & Safety, and the Environment, respectively; and Section F provides additional information about supplier assessment and monitoring.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA- MANAGEMENT SYSTEM\n\n\n\nSuppliers must have in place the appropriate control measures to monitor compliance with this Code and to promptly correct any non-compliance. \n\n\n\nThe Suppliers shall aim to establish a management system(s) whose scope is in line with the principles of this Code and in accordance with international standards such as ISO 14001, ILO-OSH 2001 and SA8000. The management system(s) shall be certified and accredited by a third party international register body. The management system will be designed to ensure (a) compliance with applicable laws, regulations and customer requirements related to the supplier\u2019s operations and products; (b) conformance with this Code; (c) identification and mitigation of operational risks related to this Code; and (d) in compliance with applicable international standards.  \n\n\n\nThe management system shall contain elements such as: company commitment and policy towards corporate social and environmental responsibilities; identification of the management accountability and responsibility; performance objectives with implementation plan and measures; training programs; compliance assessment; continuous improvement; and documentation and records; etc. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nB- LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS\n\n\n\nSuppliers are expected to uphold the human rights of workers, and to treat them with dignity and respect in compliance with internationally accepted standards as defined in the International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions and regional or national legislation governing working conditions.\n\n\n\nFreely Chosen Employment\n\nWorkers shall not be required to lodge \u2018deposits\u2019 or identity papers with the company. All work should be voluntary, and workers should be free to leave after reasonable notice.  \n\n\n\n\n\nChild Labor Avoidance\n\nThere shall be no use of child labor in production or anywhere else in the business. The term \u201cchild\u201d refers to any person employed under the age of 15 (or 14 where the laws of the country permit), or under the age for completing compulsory education, or under the minimum age for employment in the country, whichever is greatest. The use of workplace apprenticeship programs, which comply with all laws and regulations, is encouraged. Workers under the age of 18 shall not be employed at night or in hazardous conditions.\n\n\n\nWorking Hours, Wages and Benefits\n\nSuppliers will manage operations in ways that overtime does not exceed levels that create inhumane working conditions. Where there are no applicable laws, Suppliers will not require, on a regularly scheduled basis, work in excess of six consecutive days without a rest day.\n\n\n\nSuppliers must comply with all applicable wage laws, including those relating to minimum wages, overtime hours and legally mandated benefits. Where no wage law exists, workers must be paid at least the minimum local industry standard.\n\n\n\nNon-Discrimination\n\nSuppliers shall be committed to provide a workplace free of harassment and unlawful discrimination. Suppliers shall not engage in discrimination based on race, color, age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, pregnancy, religion, political affiliation, union membership or civil status in hiring and employment practices such as promotions, rewards, and access to training. \n\n\n\nFreedom of Association and collective bargaining \n\nSuppliers shall respect the rights of workers to freely join labor unions, seek representation and join workers\u2019 councils in accordance with local laws, and to bargain collectively. \n\n\n\n\nC- ETHICS \n\n\n\nBusiness Integrity\n\nSuppliers shall maintain the highest standards of corporate ethics and integrity and shall comply with all applicable federal, provincial, state and local laws, regulations and procedures.  Any form of corruption, extortion, embezzlement or falsifications is prohibited.\n\n\n\nNo Improper Advantage\n\nSuppliers shall not offer or solicit any gifts, gratuities, entertainment, payments of cash or loans or any other kind of undue favor or use other inappropriate means of influence to gain competitive advantage.\n\n\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nSuppliers shall respect intellectual property rights and comply with all applicable legislation pertaining to intellectual property rights.\n\n\n\nFair Business, Advertising and Competition\n\nSuppliers shall comply with all applicable legislation relating to fair business practices, anti-trust standards, and lawful advertising.\n\n\n\nPrivacy\n\nUnless disclosure is authorized or legally mandated (for example by court order), Suppliers should protect the confidentiality of employee and customer information in compliance with applicable privacy legislation, irrespective of whether the information and data was provided by the employee or customer, or was created by the Supplier. Suppliers should consider all non-public information to be confidential.\n\n \n\nCommunity Engagement\n\nSuppliers are invited to engage in the community to help foster social and economic development.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nD- HEALTH and SAFETY\n\n\n\nLegislation\n\nSuppliers are expected to comply with the international, regional and national health and safety standards applicable to the Suppliers\u2019 business activities. \n\n\n\nSuppliers must comply with all applicable health and safety legislation and all applicable regulations and perform all services in a diligent manner in respect of health and safety matters. \n\n\n\nSuppliers must ensure that their employees and any person present on or near the workplace are protected against potential occupational health and safety hazards resulting from the Suppliers' business activities.  Where appropriate, the Suppliers shall ensure that their employees are provided with adequate personal protective equipment, with adequate training on the safe use of tools and equipment and shall supervise employees\u2019 adherence to safe working practices.\n\n\n\nSuppliers shall ensure that all products supplied to Novatel Wireless are in compliance with all applicable workplace hazardous materials information standards.  Material Safety Data Sheets must be available in English for all products supplied to Novatel Wireless.\n\n\n\nPolicies and practices\n\nWe expect our suppliers to provide their employees with a healthy and safe working environment and where appropriate to implement and train their employees on policies, programs and procedures to address when required, in particular but not limited to, the following matters:  \n\nExposure to hazardous substances\n\nAccident prevention \n\nConfined Space Entry\n\nAerial Work\n\nErgonomics \n\nResiliency and Emergency procedures\n\n\n\n\n\n\nE- ENVIRONMENT\n\n\n\nLegislation\n\nSuppliers must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, guidelines, codes of practices, orders from and agreements entered into with government authorities relating to the protection and conservation of the environment, including the use, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of regulated hazardous substances.\n\nSuppliers must obtain, maintain and report on all environmental permits, approvals, licenses and registration as required under environmental legislation. \n\n\n\nPolicies and practices\n\nWe expect our suppliers to have knowledge of the environmental impacts associated with their business activities and where appropriate to implement policies, programs and employee training to address, in particular but not limited to, the following matters:  \n\nhazardous products management \n\naccidental spills and releases \n\nair emissions and waste water control\n\nwaste management and waste recycling \n\n\n\n\nF- SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING\n\n\n\nNovatel Wireless reserves the right to assess and monitor on an ongoing basis the supplier\u2019s practices regarding this Code.  The supplier may be requested by Novatel Wireless to complete a self-assessment questionnaire.\n\n\n\nNovatel Wireless may conduct onsite audits of selected supplier facilities which produce products for Novatel Wireless. Onsite audits may include a review of relevant supplier records, policies and work practices as well as inspection of the facilities for compliance with this Code.\n\n\n\nIn case of observed non-compliance with this Code, Supplier will take all reasonable measures to meet the standards exposed in this Code in a diligent manner. \n\n\n\n\n\nRevision\n\nRevision\n\nDate\n\nAuthor\n\nRev 1\n\nMarch 20th, 2013\n\nJ.Alatorre\n\n\n\nREFERENCES\n\n\n\nThe following documents were consulted in preparing this Code and may be a useful source of additional information. \n\n\n\nInternational Instruments\n\nUniversal Declaration of Human Rights \n\nILO International Labor Standards \n\nGuidelines on occupational safety and health management systems: ILO-OSH 2001\n\nUnited Nations Convention Against Corruption\n\n\n\n\n\nInternational Best Practices and Voluntary Standards\n\nEco Management & Audit System\n\nEICC (Electronic Industry Code of Conduct) \n\nEthical Trading Initiative\n\nISO 14001\n\nOECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises\n\nSAI (SA8000)\n\nUnited Nations Global Compact\n\n\n\nCONTACTS\n\n\n\n\n\nFor questions or comments relative to this Code:\n\nJalatorre@nvtl.com\n\nFor questions or comments relative to Novatel Wireless s procurement practices \n\nDdohna@nvtl.com\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits:216", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 216}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Yoddles\" for a chocolate candy.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "fanciful", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:83", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 83}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify a cap on liability upon the breach of a party\u2019s obligation? This includes time limitation for the counterparty to bring claims or maximum amount for recovery.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement is effective as of the last date signed below (\"Effective Date\").<omitted>13/07/05\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_cap_on_liability:1172", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_cap_on_liability", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1172, "document_name": "GlobalTechnologiesGroupInc_20050928_10KSB_EX-10.9_4148808_EX-10.9_Content License Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nLeah pawns some silverware to Thomas for $340. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "UCC", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:48", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 48}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: You are a lobbyist analyzing Congressional bills for their impacts on companies. Given the title and summary of the bill, plus information on the company from its 10-K SEC filing, determine if the bill is at least somewhat relevant to the company in terms of whether it could impact the company's bottom line if it was enacted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbill title:\nTo establish the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth, and for other purposes.\n\nbill summary:\nAdvancing Critical Connectivity Expands Service, Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and Data Based on Assessed Need and Demand Act or the ACCESS BROADBAND Act\n\nThis bill requires the Department of Commerce to establish the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The office\u00a0shall connect with communities that need access to high-speed internet and hold regional workshops to share best practices and effective strategies for promoting broadband access and adoption. The bill also requires the office to (1) develop targeted broadband training and presentations for various demographic communities through media, (2) develop and distribute publications providing guidance to communities for expanding broadband access and adoption, and (3) track construction and use of and access to any broadband infrastructure built using federal support.\n\nUnder the bill, the office shall consult with any agency offering a federal broadband support program in order to streamline the application process for financial assistance or grants.\n\nThe office, any agency that offers a federal broadband support program, and the Federal Communications Commission through the Universal Service Fund shall coordinate to ensure that broadband support is being distributed in an efficient, technology-neutral, and financially sustainable manner.\n\ncompany name:\nChase Corp.\n\ncompany description:\nItem 1 \u2013 Busines s Primary Operating Divisions and Facilities and Industry Segments Chase Corporation, a global specialty chemicals company founded in 1946, is a leading manufacturer of protective materials for high-reliability applications. The segments are distinguished by the nature of the products we manufacture and how they are delivered to their respective markets. The Industrial Materials segment includes specified products that are used in, or integrated into, another company's product, with demand typically dependent upon general economic conditions. The Construction Materials segment is principally composed of project-oriented product offerings that are primarily sold and used as \"Chase\" branded products. Our manufacturing facilities are distinct to their respective segments with the exception of our O'Hara Township, PA and Blawnox, PA facilities, which produce products related to both operating segments. Background/History Specialty tapes and related products for the electronic and telecommunications industries using the brand name Chase & Sons\u00ae. Insulating and conducting materials for the manufacture of electrical and telephone wire and cable, electrical splicing, and terminating and repair tapes, which are marketed to wire and cable manufacturers selling into energy-oriented and communication markets, and to public utilities.  PaperTyger\u00ae, a trademark for laminated durable papers sold to the envelope converting and commercial printing industries.  In August 2011, we relocated our manufacturing processes that had been previously conducted at our Webster, MA facility to this location. In December 2012, we relocated the majority of our manufacturing processes that had been previously conducted at our Randolph, MA facility to this location. Our Randolph facility was one of our first operating facilities, and had been producing products for the wire and cable industry for more than fifty years. Chase BLH2OCK\u00ae, a water-blocking compound sold to the wire and cable industry.  In September 2012, we relocated our Chase BLH2OCK\u00ae manufacturing processes that had been previously conducted at our Randolph, MA facility to this location.  Protective conformal coatings under the brand name HumiSeal\u00ae, moisture protective electronic coatings sold to the electronics industry including circuitry used in automobiles, industrial controls and home appliances.  Advanced adhesives, sealants, and coatings for automotive and industrial applications that require specialized bonding, encapsulating, environmental protection, or thermal management functionality.  In September 2016, we acquired certain assets and the operations of Resin Designs, LLC, and entered leases in their existing manufacturing facilities in Massachusetts and California.  Laminated film foils for the electronics and cable industries and cover tapes essential to delivering semiconductor components via tape and reel packaging. Pulling and detection tapes used in the installation, measurement and location of fiber optic cables, and water and natural gas lines. Cover tapes essential to delivering semiconductor components via tape and reel packaging.  In October 2013, we moved the majority of our manufacturing processes that had been conducted at our Taylorsville, NC facility to our Lenoir, NC location.  3 Key Products & Services Primary Manufacturing Locations Background/History Protective conformal coatings under the brand name HumiSeal\u00ae, moisture protective electronic coatings sold to the electronics industry including circuitry used in automobiles, industrial controls and home appliances.  In March 2007, we expanded our international presence with the formation of HumiSeal Europe SARL in France. HumiSeal Europe SARL operates a sales/technical service office and warehouse near Paris, France. In June 2016, we further expanded our international presence through the purchase of Spray Products (India) Private Limited, located in Pune, India. This business enhances the Company's ability to provide technical, sales, manufacturing, chemical handling and packaging services in the region and works closely with our HumiSeal manufacturing operation in Winnersh, Wokingham, England.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "corporate_lobbying:212", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "corporate_lobbying", "task_family": "corporate", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 212}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(A) for himself if he is blind at the close of the taxable year, and\n\ndescription:\nIn 2017, Alice was paid $33200. Alice and Bob have been married since Feb 3rd, 2017. Alice and Bob file separate returns in 2017. Alice has been blind since April 19, 2015.\n\nquestion:\nSection 63(f)(2)(A) applies to Bob in 2017.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Contradiction", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:144", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 144, "case id": "s63_f_2_A_neg", "text": "        (A) for himself if he is blind at the close of the taxable year, and <br> In 2017, Alice was paid $33200. Alice and Bob have been married since Feb 3rd, 2017. Alice and Bob file separate returns in 2017. Alice has been blind since April 19, 2015. <br> Section 63(f)(2)(A) applies to Bob in 2017."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues that arise within a family, like divorce, adoption, name change, guardianship, domestic violence, child custody, and other issues?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSo I hired a lawyer last year to help me with my child support case. Back story, I was a SAHM for three years and also a full time student. Ex and I decided to mutually split and split our times with the kids as well. After the separation, ex was acting childish and stupid so I started getting my evidence together to take him to court to get primary custody of the kids and child support as well. Of course, I had to get state support since I was not working after the separation and they referred me to their 'go to lawyer'. I contacted said lawyer and her paralegal. They assured me it would be an easy case and to send everything their way.   Long story short, I didn't get primary custody, but shared.  50/50 was what the judge ordered. Even though I had multiple proof of him not being fit to have the children for 50% of the time. Anyways, after the judge ruled the shared custody, we were supposed to go over child support. Here where I'm at, the child support services will not talk to me since I'm being represented by my attorney. They will only speak to her and will only accept documents from her. I've tried calling, emailing and even stopping by the office but they've cut me out cold.   What can I do? Our contract is different because I was referred to her by the state. I paid a one time fee and she said it would cover ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Even if I needed her a few years down the line, as long as it was about my case with my ex. I feel like she's trying not to help me since she's technically losing out on money.  Any advice?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_family:471", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_family", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 471}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Old Crow\" for whiskey.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "arbitrary", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:42", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 42}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(2).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAcme Sporting Goods is a telemarketer subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Acme Sporting Goods sold a customer a basketball, but told the customer that it would only accept exchanges or refunds within 90 days of purchase. Is this a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "telemarketing_sales_rule:36", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "telemarketing_sales_rule", "task_family": "telemarketing", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 36}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Is there a requirement for insurance that must be maintained by one party for the benefit of the counterparty?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHERC agrees to furnish THC and HSI Certificates of Insurance evidencing same within thirty (30) days after the execution of this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_insurance:114", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_insurance", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 114, "document_name": "HERTZGLOBALHOLDINGS,INC_07_07_2016-EX-10.4-INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: You are a lobbyist analyzing Congressional bills for their impacts on companies. Given the title and summary of the bill, plus information on the company from its 10-K SEC filing, determine if the bill is at least somewhat relevant to the company in terms of whether it could impact the company's bottom line if it was enacted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbill title:\nTo provide for the establishment of the Western Riverside County Wildlife Refuge.\n\nbill summary:\nThis bill directs the Department of the Interior to establish the Western Riverside County National Wildlife Refuge in California.\n\n Interior must include within the boundaries of the refuge the lands and waters within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area that are owned by the federal government, a state, or a political subdivision of a state upon the establishment of the refuge.\n\nInterior may enter into cooperative agreements with the State of California, any of its political subdivisions, or any other persons to (1) manage lands that are owned by California, the subdivision, or the other person and located within the refuge; and (2) promote public awareness of the natural resources of the conservation area; or (3) encourage participation by the public in the conservation of such resources.\n\nInterior may acquire by donation, purchase, or exchange the lands and waters or interests in them (including conservation easements) within the refuge, except those which are owned by California and its political subdivisions may be acquired by donation only.\n\n Federal property in the refuge must be assessed for inclusion in the refuge and must be transferred to Interior if deemed suitable for inclusion.\n\ncompany name:\nAlliance Resource Partners LP\n\ncompany description:\nWe are a diversified natural resource company that generates income from coal production and oil & gas mineral interests located in strategic producing regions across the United States. We are currently the second largest coal producer in the eastern United States with eight underground mining complexes in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland and West Virginia as well as a coal loading terminal in Indiana. We market our coal production to major domestic and international utilities and industrial users. We have grown historically primarily through expansion of our coal operations by adding and developing mines and coal reserves in these regions. In addition, we generate royalty income from mineral interests we own in premier oil & gas producing regions in the United States, primarily the Anadarko, Permian, Williston and Appalachian basins.  Pursuant to that transaction, which closed on the same date, MGP contributed to ARLP all of its incentive distribution rights (\"IDRs\") and its 0.99% managing general partner interest in ARLP in exchange for 56,100,000 ARLP common units and a non-economic general partner interest in ARLP. AHGP would become a wholly owned subsidiary of ARLP, ii.  The remaining AHGP common units held by the Owners of SGP were canceled and converted into the right to receive 29,188,997 ARLP common units which equaled (i) the product of the number of certain AHGP common units held by the Owners of SGP multiplied by 1.4782, minus (ii) 1,322,388 ARLP common units. In addition, ARLP issued 1,322,388 ARLP common units to the Owners of SGP in exchange for causing SGP to contribute to ARLP its remaining limited partner interest in AHGP, which included AHGP's indirect ownership of a 1.0001% general partner interest in the Intermediate Partnership and a 0.001% managing member interest in Alliance Coal, resulting in an overall exchange ratio to the Owners of SGP equal to that of the other AHGP unitholders. Upon the issuance of ARLP common units to the Owners of SGP in exchange for the limited partner interest in AHGP, ARLP became a) the sole limited partner of AHGP and b) through AHGP, the indirect owner of a 1.0001% general partner interest in the Intermediate Partnership and a 0.001% managing member interest in Alliance Coal.  ARLP indirectly owns a 96.0% non-managing member interest and a non-economic managing member interest in Cavalier Minerals. On January 26, 2019, Kodiak Gas Services, LLC (\"Kodiak\") provided notification that it intended to redeem our preferred interest for $135.0 million, which is inclusive of an early redemption premium. We produce a diverse range of steam and metallurgical coal with varying sulfur and heat contents, which enables us to satisfy the broad range of specifications required by our customers. In 2018, we sold a record 40.4 million tons of coal and produced 40.3 million tons. The coal we sold in 2018 was approximately 28.1% low-sulfur coal, 40.1% medium-sulfur coal and 31.8% high-sulfur coal. Based on market expectations, we classify low-sulfur coal as coal with a sulfur content of less than 1.5%, medium-sulfur coal as coal with a sulfur content of 1.5% to 3%, and high-sulfur coal as coal with a sulfur content of greater than 3%. In 2018, approximately 68.2% of our tons sold were purchased by United States electric utilities and 27.8% were sold into the international markets through brokered transactions. The balance of our tons sold were to third-party resellers and industrial consumers. For tons sold to United 3 States electric utilities, 100% were sold to utility plants with installed pollution control devices. The BTU content of our coal ranges from 11,400 to 13,200.  The following map shows the location of our coal mining operations: Illinois Basin Operations: 4. Mining Access: Slope & Shaft Mining Access: Slope & Shaft  Transportation: Barge & Truck Transportation: Barge & Railroad Coal Type: Medium/High-Sulfur  METTIKI COMPLEX & Truck & Truck 8. Mining Access: Slope & Shaft & Continuous Miner\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "corporate_lobbying:181", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "corporate_lobbying", "task_family": "corporate", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 181}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(2).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAcme Industrial Products is a telemarketer subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Acme Industrial Products sold a customer a used lawnmower, and told the customer that it would accept exchanges but not refunds. Is this a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "telemarketing_sales_rule:34", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "telemarketing_sales_rule", "task_family": "telemarketing", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 34}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nA second person interprets the graph the machine prints out \u2014 perhaps by comparing that printout with published, standardized graphs of known drugs.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:762", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 762}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does intellectual property created by one party become the property of the counterparty, either per the terms of the contract or upon the occurrence of certain events?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSeller hereby covenants and agrees, that from time to time forthwith upon the reasonable written request of Backhaul or Buyer, that Seller will, at Backhaul's cost and expense, do, execute, acknowledge and deliver or cause to be done, executed, acknowledged and delivered, each and all of such further acts, deeds, assignments, transfers, conveyances and assurances as may reasonably be required by Backhaul or Buyer in order to transfer, assign, convey and deliver unto and vest in Backhaul title to all right, title and interest of Seller in, to and under the Assigned Intellectual Property.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment:152", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 152, "document_name": "VERSOTECHNOLOGIESINC_12_28_2007-EX-99.3-INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how and why a service provider collects user information?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nUser Generated Content and Public Activities (Including Comments) We offer you the opportunity to engage in public activities on our Web Sites and other SIDEARM Services. \"Public activities\" include any actions you take on our Web Sites that are designed to be visible to other users, including comments or any other items that you submit. Any information you disclose in your public activities, along with your screen name or ID, or any image or photo, becomes public and may be used by SIDEARM Sports for online and offline promotional or commercial uses in any and all media. If you choose to engage in public activities, you should be aware that any personal information you submit can be read, collected and used by other users. We are not responsible for the personally identifiable information you choose to submit in the course of your public activities and we have no responsibility to publish, take down, remove or edit any of your public activities or submissions.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_first_party_collection_use:1632", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_first_party_collection_use", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1632}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify that one party can terminate this contract without cause (solely by giving a notice and allowing a waiting period to expire)?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWe will have the right to terminate the Ad Fund by giving you thirty (30) days' advance written notice.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_termination_for_convenience:50", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_termination_for_convenience", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 50, "document_name": "JOINTCORP_09_19_2014-EX-10.15-FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause require consent or notice of a party if the contract is assigned to a third party?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIf HOC, acting reasonably, determines that the Joint Venture Proposal Notice contains insufficient information to make a reasoned decision in respect of participating in the Proposed Joint Venture, it shall notify the Company of the information required to make such decision and thereafter shall have the greater of (i) five (5) Business Days from the receipt of such information from the Company, and (ii) the days remaining in the period specified in Section 6.2 to make such decision and deliver or refrain from delivering the HOC JV Acceptance Notice in accordance with such Section 6.2.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_anti-assignment:634", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_anti-assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 634, "document_name": "GOLDRESOURCECORP_12_11_2008-EX-10.1-STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nMarcia agrees to sell her house to Nancy for $100,000. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Common Law", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:2", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 2}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Do the following opinion excerpts rely on statistical evidence? Answer Yes or No.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nRegarding Tsur's second, and alternative, theory of disparate treatment, that Intel's neutral selection criteria were inherently biased against older workers, the Supreme Court has foreclosed this argument. The Court agrees that Tsur has provided declarations and deposition testimony raising a genuine issue of material fact whether the SSL4 and SSL5 awards, one of the criteria used for the layoffs, were skewed to more senior grade employees. HN13 The Supreme Court, however, rejected disparate treatment ADEA claims when the employer acted \"on the basis of a factor, such as an employee's pension status or seniority, that is empirically correlated with age.\" [*27]  Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 608, 613, 113 S. Ct. 1701, 123 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1993). In that case, the Supreme Court explained: \"Because age and years of service are analytically distinct, an employer can take account of one while ignoring the other, and thus it is incorrect to say that a decision based on years of service is necessarily 'age based.'\" Id. at 611. \"This is true even if the motivating factor is correlated with age, as pension status typically is. Pension plans typically provide that an employee's accrued benefits will become nonforfeitable, or 'vested,' once the employee completes a certain number of years of service with the employer.\" Id.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "legal_reasoning_causality:28", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "legal_reasoning_causality", "task_family": "legal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 28}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information may be shared with or collected by third parties?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTulsaworld.com also tracks and collects non-personally identifiable information which does not identify a specific visitor. Non-personally identifiable information may include the Uniform Resource Locator (\"URL\") of the website your visited before coming to our Website, the URL of the website you visit after leaving our Website, the type of browser you are using and your Internet Protocol (\"IP\") address. Tulsaworld.com tracks computer IP addresses to help with system administration and to compile information about traffic patterns on the site. Computer IP addresses identify computers and the networks or Internet service providers to which they are connected. We, and/or our authorized third party service providers and advertisers, may automatically collect this information when you visit our Website through the use of electronic tools like cookies and web beacons or pixel tags, as described below. We use non-personally identifiable information to troubleshoot, administer the Website, analyze trends, gather demographic information, comply with applicable law, and cooperate with law enforcement activities. We may also share this information with our authorized third party service providers and advertisers to measure the overall effectiveness of our online advertising, content, and programming.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection:215", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 215}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information may be shared with or collected by third parties?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTo access or correct your information You can access all your personally identifiable information that we collect online and maintain by logging into your account and adjusting your account settings and profile information. You can correct factual errors in your personally identifiable information by sending us a request that credibly shows error. To protect your privacy and security, we will also take reasonable steps to verify your identity before granting access or making corrections.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection:1700", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1700}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Kerosene\" for packages of flammable liquids used to start fires.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "generic", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:4", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 4}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOn the issue of whether Patricia was a fan of Coldplay, the fact that she had a poster with the lyrics of \"Viva la Vida\" on her bedroom wall.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:6", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 6, "slice": "Non-assertive conduct"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMaterial Intellectual Property means any intellectual property owned by the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary that is, in the good faith determination of the Borrower, material to the operation of the business of the Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries, taken as a whole.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "jcrew_blocker:53", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "jcrew_blocker", "task_family": "jcrew", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 53}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Is there a requirement for insurance that must be maintained by one party for the benefit of the counterparty?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nExcept as set forth in Articles 7.1, 7.2, 8.1 and 8.2, it is explicitly agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement shall prevent either Party or any of their respective Affiliates from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise, which develops, manufactures, markets, or sells products that are not within the Field of Agreement, and except as set forth in Articles 7.1, 7.2, 8.1 and 8.2, either Party shall be free to engage in any business, enterprise, or undertaking, or to make any investment it chooses.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_insurance:680", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_insurance", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 680, "document_name": "IGENEBIOTECHNOLOGYINC_05_13_2003-EX-1-JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTony (from Texas) is a regional manager for a cookbook company, Tasty Eats Books (incorporated and principal place of business in Delaware). Tony\u2019s job requires him to travel from city to city to show new cookbooks to chefs. In January 2022, he was scheduled to visit restaurants in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. While in Michigan, Tony goes to Lake Erie to blow off some steam. He ends up getting into a fight with Arthur, a lawyer from Detroit, Michigan. Tony and Arthur each blame the other for starting the fight. Tony sues Arthur in Michigan.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "personal_jurisdiction:24", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "personal_jurisdiction", "task_family": "personal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 24, "slice": "Yes contacts, yes nexus."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(i) by a student who is enrolled and is regularly attending classes at such school, college, or university, or\n\ndescription:\nAlice was paid $3200 in 2017 for services performed for Johns Hopkins University. Alice was enrolled at Johns Hopkins University and attending classes from August 29, 2015 to May 30th, 2019.\n\nquestion:\nSection 3306(c)(10)(A)(i) applies to Alice's employment situation in 2017.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Entailment", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:23", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 23, "case id": "s3306_c_10_A_i_pos", "text": "            (i) by a student who is enrolled and is regularly attending classes at such school, college, or university, or <br> Alice was paid $3200 in 2017 for services performed for Johns Hopkins University. Alice was enrolled at Johns Hopkins University and attending classes from August 29, 2015 to May 30th, 2019. <br> Section 3306(c)(10)(A)(i) applies to Alice's employment situation in 2017."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Airbus\" for an airplane manufacturer.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "suggestive", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:41", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 41}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information is protected?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nPersistent cookies store information on your computer for longer periods of time and across multiple sessions. The Library never uses persistent cookies to collect personal identifiable information about our website visitors. The Library uses persistent cookies to improve our web metrics by distinguishing between new and returning visitors; to prevent repeated prompting to complete our customer satisfaction survey, to anonymously aggregate data on how visitors use our sites and to \"remember\" preferences that you voluntarily provide in order to create a more seamless experience.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_data_security:340", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_data_security", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 340}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how and why a service provider collects user information?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOrder We request information from the user on our order form. A user must provide contact information (such as name, email, and shipping address) and financial information (such as credit card number, expiration date). This information is used for billing purposes and to fill customer's orders. If we have trouble processing an order, the information is used to contact the user.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_first_party_collection_use:427", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_first_party_collection_use", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 427}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify which state/country's law governs the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the law of Tennessee.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_governing_law:260", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_governing_law", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 260, "document_name": "WARNINGMANAGEMENTSERVICESINC_12_10_1999-EX-10-ENDORSEMENT AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nThe -- let's say that I'm both a Prince fan, which I was in the '80s, and -- (Laughter.) No longer? (Laughter.) Well -- (Laughter.) -- so only on Thursday nights. (Laughter.)\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Humor", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:209", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-869", "index": 209}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party may share some Confidential Information with some third-parties (including consultants, agents and professional advisors).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall not prohibit disclosure to third party consultants and professional advisors provided such third parties enter into and agree to be bound by this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties:25", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 25, "document_name": "confidentiality-agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbut the non-voip customer would be charged a total of $10.00 ($1.00 times 10 access lines), while the voip customer would have to pay $20.00 ($1.00 times 20 individual phone numbers) for the same concurrent outbound call capacity. as a result, if a customer switched from a non-voip telecommunications service to a voip one with the same concurrent outbound calling capacity and the same number of individual phone numbers, bellsouth asserted that such a customer would see its monthly telephone bill increase substantially. with that basic understanding, we return to the order the commission issued in response to the district courts referral. the \fusca11 case: 19-15072 date filed: 10/26/2021 page: 18 of 29 18 opinion of the court 19-15072 commissions order interpreted the 911 fee parity provision, 47 u.s.c. 615a-1(f)(1), to prohibit[] non-federal governmental enti- ties from imposing 911 fees or charges on voip services in any man- ner that would result in a subscriber to such voip services paying a total amount of 911 fees or charges that exceeds the total amount of 911 fees or charges that the same subscriber would pay for a tra- ditional telecommunications service with the same 911 outbound calling capability or same quantity of units upon which 911 fees are imposed for traditional telecommunications services. in other words, the oranges-to-oranges comparison the commissions interpretation of 615a-1(f)(1) requires is based on the unit of outbound concurrent calling capacityeffectively, the same ability to burden 911 services at any point in timenot the base fee. so under this construction, the number of phone num- bers a voip customer has is necessarily irrelevant to the maximum amount the voip customer may be charged if it is not possible for the voip customer to use all its phone numbers simultaneously to call 911. rather, both voip and non-voip customers may be charged the 911 fee for only as many numbers as they have the ability to simultaneously use to call 911. so voip and non-voip customers pay the same total 911 fee for the same maximum con- current call capacity, without respect to how the system is config- ured\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:102", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 102}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause restrict the ability of a party to compete with the counterparty or operate in a certain geography or business or technology sector?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe Advertising Cost Compensation depends on the actual sales generated by end users referred via the electronic advertisement (the Affiliate's link).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_non-compete:296", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_non-compete", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 296, "document_name": "SouthernStarEnergyInc_20051202_SB-2A_EX-9_801890_EX-9_Affiliate Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that all Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n1.1 \u201cConfidential Information\u201d refers to: 1.1.1  In respect of Information provided in documentary form or in other electronic form, Information which at the time of provision is marked or otherwise designated to show expressly or by necessary implication that is imparted in confidence; 1.1.2  In respect of Information that is imparted orally, any Information that the Discloser or its representatives informed the Recipient at the time of disclosure was imparted in confidence;\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_explicit_identification:4", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_explicit_identification", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 4, "document_name": "NonDisclosureAgreementNDASAMITT20190002v2.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Imagine your are the New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. You've received the following question(s). Answer them as either \"Yes\" or \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIs a town justice permitted to furnish advance copies of the court's criminal calendar to the District Attorney and Public Defender if reasonable requests are complied with?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "nys_judicial_ethics:11", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "nys_judicial_ethics", "task_family": "nys", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 11, "year": 2010}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe card holder may commence a civil action if the issuer does not pay to the card holder the amount owed under Subsection (4) within 30 calendar days from the day on which the notice is mailed.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "proa:36", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 36}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does intellectual property created by one party become the property of the counterparty, either per the terms of the contract or upon the occurrence of certain events?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTo the extent that Commerce One would otherwise have a claim of ownership in such Developments, Commerce One hereby assigns all rights in and to such Developments to Corio.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment:54", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 54, "document_name": "CORIOINC_07_20_2000-EX-10.5-LICENSE AND HOSTING AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbrimberry contends that the instruction employed an overly broad reading of the statute. the phrase property belonging to the estate of a debtor should be interpreted narrowly, brimberry asserts, because the phrase was not defined in the statute and the ordinary meaning of the phrase does not encompass assets which a trustee may acquire title to in a legal proceeding. see united states v. bass, 404 u.s. 336, 347-48, 92 s.ct. 515, 522-23, 30 l.ed.2d 488 (1971) ( ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity. ).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:45", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 45}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues related to working at a job, including discrimination and harassment, worker's compensation, workers rights, unions, getting paid, pensions, being fired, and more?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHello, I recently quit my job at Papa Johns due to constant understaffing and extreme stress. I know they are obligated to pay me my hours worked, but I still have not received my check in the mail. Are companies required to send it in the mail, or is there a chance I will need to go pick it up? I haven't returned the uniform yet, but they can't withhold my check for that, can they? Any advice is appreciated.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_employment:292", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_employment", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 292}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 75\n\nParagraph:\nIn the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress introduced a more explicit, two-part framework that applied to works created on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the Act). 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 101; Forward, 985 F.2d at 605. The 1976 Act defined a \u201cwork made for hire\u201d as either:\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Rule", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:265", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 265}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nSo please tell me why it's not protected speech, the identical message that -- that Justice Barrett put forth but by a disabled couple. And you say, I don't want disabled people to get married. I think propagating a disability is against my personal *23 belief. It doesn't have to be religious because we're not dealing with the religious part of this. I don't want to speak that message. I too believe that two disabled people getting married and telling their story of how they got in love, I'm not going to serve those people because I don't believe that they should be married. What's the difference between that and I don't believe black people and white people should get married?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Clarification", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:111", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-476", "index": 111}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party may share some Confidential Information with some third-parties (including consultants, agents and professional advisors).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe Receiving Party: (b) shall not disclose or reveal any Confidential Information to any person other than its Representatives who are actively and directly participating in the Evaluation or who otherwise need to know the Confidential Information for the purpose of the Evaluation;  (d) shall not disclose to any person (other than those of its Representatives who are actively and directly participating in the Evaluation or who otherwise need to know for the purpose of the Evaluation) any information about the Evaluation, or the terms or conditions or any other facts relating thereto, including, without limitation, the fact that discussions are taking place with respect thereto or the status thereof, or the fact that Confidential Information has been made available to the Receiving Party or its Representatives.  As used herein. \u201cRepresentatives\u201d shall mean  (i) employees of Receiving Party;  (ii) attorneys, accountants, or other professional business advisors and, additionally, (iii) employees of the Receiving Party and those entities directly or indirectly owned by the Receiving Party, in each case, who shall be informed of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information and shall agree to act in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties:69", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 69, "document_name": "1402305_0001193125-11-343865_d268167dex99d2.htm"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nCounsel, Justice Kavanaugh -- this is -- Justice Kavanaugh asked a question earlier that you're not defending the Ninth Circuit decision. Could you succinctly point out why you're not or, if you are, why he's wrong and -- and explain how your position differs from the Ninth Circuit, if it does?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Support", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:305", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-1484", "index": 305}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 65\n\nParagraph:\nWe have previously stated that Donna \u201cassisted her husband [Stephen] in most aspects of the [money laundering] operation.\u201d5 Id. at 7. She \u201crelayed his instructions to the others [involved in the conspiracy].\u201d Id. Stephen and Donna wired over $136 million out of the jointly owned Trend account to an assortment of foreign banks.6 Defendants' Forfeiture Order, 823 F. Supp. at 999; see also Stephen's Direct Appeal, 58 F.3d at 762-63. Donna also \u201chelped count money, [ ] personally authorized the wire transfer of more than $38 million from the Trend account to foreign bank accounts,\u201d Appellants' Direct Appeal, 63 F.3d at 11, and \u201ccaused phony invoices to be issued,\u201d Defendants' Forfeiture Order, 823 F. Supp. at 998.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Procedural History", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:237", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 237}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n4. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party, Recipient shall not disclose to any person or entity (other than its Representatives who are involved in its evaluation of the Purpose) any information with respect to the occurrence or content of any discussions or negotiations between the Parties.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement:15", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 15, "document_name": "NDA-Template-Media-News-Group-inc.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\na. The receiving Party undertakes not to use the Information disclosed to it for any purpose except the Purpose.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement:64", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 64, "document_name": "CA-Nov14-Doc.5.14%20-%20Template%20Confidentiality%20Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with paying your rent or mortgage, landlord-tenant issues, housing subsidies and public housing, eviction, and other problems with your apartment, mobile home, or house?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOk, so about a year ago my grandmother passed away. No will was left behind, but she had expressed that she wished for it to be sold and split amongst the four grandchildren. She has no living children.   I have no way to contract two of us (no social media, no known number as i haven't talked to them in years and they didn't show up to the funeral) and the third has said she wants the house solely for herself as she thinks she deserves it more.   I can't afford a lawyer, but i want to see the house sold and split evenly. What steps do i take to see this happen? If it matters, this is in Illinois and I'm the oldest grandchild.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_housing:2276", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_housing", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 2276}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMartha makes special pinwheel hats, which she only sells to other residents of her hometown (Salem, Oregon). Through a series of second-hand sales, one of these hats makes it way to Alex, a citizen of Maine. The pinwheel comes off and seriously cuts Alex. Alex sues Martha for damages in Maine.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "personal_jurisdiction:41", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "personal_jurisdiction", "task_family": "personal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 41, "slice": "No contacts, no nexus."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause restrict the ability of a party to compete with the counterparty or operate in a certain geography or business or technology sector?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nEach of you agrees that during the period Franchisee operates any Buffalo Wild Wings and/or bw-3 Restaurants, or has any beneficial interest therein, or holds any rights to develop one or more such Restaurants (including all renewal periods) you shall not directly or indirectly on your own account or as an employee, consultant, partner, officer, director, shareholder or member of any person, firm, entity, partnership, corporation or company, own, operate, lease franchise, engage in, be connected with, have any interest in, or assist any person or entity engaged in: 1) any restaurant business, 2) any prepared food business, or 3) any other business which sells prepared food products the same or similar as the type sold in our System.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_non-compete:116", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_non-compete", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 116, "document_name": "BUFFALOWILDWINGSINC_06_05_1998-EX-10.3-FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify which state/country's law governs the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIf the Commencement Date does not occur on or before such date (the \"Scheduled Conversion Date\") solely as a result of Metavante's failure to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement or the Conversion Plan (including the satisfactory completion of the identified Enhancements) and not as a result of any failure by Customer or any Third Party, Customer shall recover liquidated damages equal to the following: 1. Metavante shall pay Customer $10,000.00 for each month or portion thereof that Metavante fails to have the Commencement Date occur on the Scheduled Conversion Date provided that such amount shall be prorated for any partial month. Metavante will establish a new Scheduled Conversion Date if the above date is missed, subject to Customer's approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_governing_law:623", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_governing_law", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 623, "document_name": "OFGBANCORP_03_28_2007-EX-10.23-OUTSOURCING AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with paying your rent or mortgage, landlord-tenant issues, housing subsidies and public housing, eviction, and other problems with your apartment, mobile home, or house?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nMy ex-husband and I have been divorced for two years. Communication has always been challenging. I feel I have tried and tried to take the high road and handle any conflicts we have had in a mature manner. As long as I keep my mouth shut, things have gone smoothly but anytime I speak up at all, it becomes a massive problem.  He was verbally/mentally abusive when we were married. Controlling and angry. He is still very angry at me for things that happened while we were married, things that happened ten years ago are still brought up and thrown in my face. He calls me names, cusses me out, hangs up over and over only to call me right back to continue berating me for various things.  Right now we have joint legal custody, I have primary physical custody. He sees them fairly consistently, every Wednesday for 4 hours and every other weekend from 4pm Friday - 4pm Sunday.   I am strongly considering petitioning the court to modify our arrangement in hopes of following a parallel parenting plan. I am regularly taking our oldest child to therapy as it is and the kids are being negatively affected by our inability to communicate.   We've never modified anything since our divorce in 2015. What do I need to do to request and be granted a parallel parenting agreement?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_housing:3149", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_housing", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 3149}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(2).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAcme Industrial Products is a telemarketer subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Acme Industrial Products sold a vacuum to a customer for $300, but before the sale told the customer that this price did not include a $5 credit card processing fee. The customer agreed to the sale. Is this a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "telemarketing_sales_rule:30", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "telemarketing_sales_rule", "task_family": "telemarketing", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 30}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Do the following opinion excerpts rely on statistical evidence? Answer Yes or No.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nKelley alleges that, as an African American woman, she was \"summarily, and wrongfully, fired\" whereas \"male and white colleagues were given opportunities to resign from ISU with significant buyouts or severance payments,\" and as a result of this disparate treatment, Kelley suffered lost earnings, benefits, and professional embarrassment. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 152, 154. HN23 At the motion to dismiss stage, although the Court accepts the factual allegations in the Complaint as true, it does not accept \"legal conclusions or '[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.'\" Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Kelley's conclusory allegation of disparate [**43]  treatment is insufficient to permit an inference of discrimination. See Hager, 735 F.3d at 1015 (holding that to support an inference of discrimination based on disparate treatment, plaintiffs must allege that \"similarly situated employees\" were treated more favorably (citing Coleman v. Md. Ct. App., 626 F.3d 187, 190-91 (4th Cir. 2010))). Kelley's complaint vaguely refers to \"male and white colleagues in ISU's Administration\" without alleging any facts suggesting those colleagues were similarly situated. Compl. \u00b6 151. Kelley alleges she served as Title IX coordinator, equal opportunity director, affirmative action compliance officer, Section 504 coordinator, ADA compliance officer, and civil rights investigator. The nonspecific term \"colleagues\" encompasses a broad spectrum of administrative personnel at ISU, but fails to identify any who were similarly situated\u2014particularly in light of the constellation of roles that Kelly held at ISU. Thus, Kelley's allegation that she was treated disparately from white and male colleagues does not give rise to a circumstantial inference of discrimination. Because Kelley has not plausibly alleged facts supporting the fourth element of a prima facie claim of unlawful race and gender discrimination under Title VII, Count III must be dismissed. [**44]\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "legal_reasoning_causality:37", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "legal_reasoning_causality", "task_family": "legal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 37}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAt the time Congress drafted the Act, Black's Law Dictionary defined \u201cactual damages\u201d as \u201c[r]eal, substantial and just damages, or the amount awarded to a complainant in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury\u201d and as \u201c[s]ynonymous with \u2018compensatory damages.\u2019 \u201d Black's Law Dictionary 467 (rev. 4th ed.1968) (hereinafter Black's).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:103", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 103}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, migrant work and benefits, and other issues faced by people who are not full citizens in the US?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI guess it comes down to whether or not that would legally be considered an internship or training. I'm currently in the US on the Visa Waiver Program. I want to get some exposure to a certain STEM workplace at a local company (unpaid). Is there any way I can do this legally?  I'm only here for two months, so it's very short notice, and I doubt I have time to get visas allowing internships.  I asked this earlier, but it got no response and was buried. [LINK](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/6o2cu6/pennsylvania_can_i_do_unpaid_work_with_a_company/)\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_immigration:15", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_immigration", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 15}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: You are a lobbyist analyzing Congressional bills for their impacts on companies. Given the title and summary of the bill, plus information on the company from its 10-K SEC filing, determine if the bill is at least somewhat relevant to the company in terms of whether it could impact the company's bottom line if it was enacted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nbill title:\nA bill to require the establishment of a process for excluding articles imported from the People's Republic of China from certain duties imposed under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and for other purposes.\n\nbill summary:\nImport Tax Relief Act of 2019\n\nThis bill requires the President to establish a process by which certain articles imported from China may be excluded from duties.\n\nSpecifically, the bill requires the creation of a process whereby U.S. entities may request that articles imported from China be excluded from duties imposed under the Trade Act of 1974. Such an exclusion must be based on a determination that the article can easily be excluded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and that\u00a0(1) the article is not commercially available outside of China or produced at a cost-competitive price, (2) a duty on the article would increase consumer prices for everyday items consumed by low- or middle-income families in the United States, or (3) the article does not directly benefit from nonmarket-based policies of China.\n\nFurther, this exclusion applies retroactively to recently imported articles that would have been subject to a lower rate under this bill.\n\ncompany name:\nUnited Airlines Holdings, Inc.\n\ncompany description:\nAs UAL consolidates United for financial statement purposes, disclosures that relate to activities of United also apply to UAL, unless otherwise noted. The Company transports people and cargo through its mainline and regional operations. With key global aviation rights in North America, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East and Latin America, UAL has the world\u0092s most comprehensive global route network. UAL, through United and its regional carriers, operates more than 4,500 flights a day to 338 airports across five continents, with hubs at Newark Liberty International Airport (\u0093Newark\u0094), Chicago O\u0092Hare International Airport (\u0093Chicago O\u0092Hare\u0094), The hub and spoke system allows us to transport passengers between a large number of destinations with substantially more frequent service than if each route were served directly. The 3 hub system also allows us to add service to a new destination from a large number of cities using only one or a limited number of aircraft. As discussed under Alliances below, United is a member of Star Alliance, the world\u0092s largest alliance network.  The Company has contractual relationships with various regional carriers to provide regional aircraft service branded as United Express. This regional service complements our operations by carrying traffic that connects to our mainline service and allows flights to smaller cities that cannot be provided economically with mainline aircraft. Republic Airlines (\u0093Republic\u0094), Champlain Enterprises, LLC d/b/a CommutAir (\u0093CommutAir\u0094), ExpressJet Airlines (\u0093ExpressJet\u0094), GoJet Airlines (\u0093GoJet\u0094), Mesa Airlines (\u0093Mesa\u0094), SkyWest Airlines (\u0093SkyWest\u0094), Air Wisconsin Airlines (\u0093Air Wisconsin\u0094), and Trans States Airlines (\u0093Trans States\u0094) are all regional carriers that operate with capacity contracted to United under capacity purchase agreements (\u0093CPAs\u0094). Under these CPAs, the Company pays the regional carriers contractually agreed fees (carrier costs) for operating these flights plus a variable reimbursement (incentive payment for operational performance) based on agreed performance metrics, subject to annual inflation adjustments. The fees for carrier costs are based on specific rates for various operating expenses of the regional carriers, such as crew expenses, maintenance and aircraft ownership, some of which are multiplied by specific operating statistics (e.g., block hours, departures), while others are fixed monthly amounts. Under these CPAs, the Company is responsible for all fuel costs incurred, as well as landing fees and other costs, which are either passed through by the regional carrier to the Company without any markup or directly incurred by the Company. In return, the regional carriers operate this capacity exclusively for United, on schedules determined by the Company. The Company also determines pricing and revenue management, assumes the inventory and distribution risk for the available seats and permits mileage accrual and redemption for regional flights through its MileagePlus \u00ae loyalty program.  United is a member of Star Alliance, a global integrated airline network and the largest and most comprehensive airline alliance in the world. As of January 1, 2018, Star Alliance carriers served 1,300 airports in 191 countries with 18,400 daily departures. Star Alliance members, in addition to United, are Adria Airways, Aegean Airlines, Air Canada, Air China, Air India, Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways (\u0093ANA\u0094), Asiana Airlines, Austrian Airlines, Avianca, Avianca Brasil, Brussels Airlines, Copa Airlines, Croatia Airlines, EGYPTAIR, Ethiopian Airlines, EVA Air, LOT Polish Airlines, Lufthansa, SAS Scandinavian Airlines, Shenzhen Airlines, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways, SWISS, TAP Air Portugal, THAI Airways International and Turkish Airlines. United has a variety of bilateral commercial alliance agreements and obligations with Star Alliance members, addressing, among other things, reciprocal earning and redemption of frequent flyer miles, access to airport lounges and, with certain Star Alliance members, codesharing of flight operations (whereby one carrier\u0092s selected flights can be marketed under the brand name of another carrier). In addition to the alliance agreements with Star Alliance members, United currently maintains independent marketing alliance agreements with other air carriers, including Aeromar, Aer Lingus, Air Dolomiti, Azul, Cape Air, Eurowings, Great Lakes Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and Silver Airways. In addition to the marketing alliance agreements with air partners, United also offers a train-to-plane codeshare and frequent flyer alliance with Amtrak from Newark on select city pairs in the northeastern United States.  United also participates in three passenger joint ventures, one with Air Canada and the Lufthansa Group (which includes Lufthansa and its affiliates Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, Eurowings and SWISS) covering transatlantic routes, one with ANA covering certain transpacific routes and one with Air New Zealand covering certain routes between the United States and New Zealand. These passenger joint ventures enable the participating carriers to integrate the services they provide in the respective regions, capturing revenue synergies and delivering highly competitive flight schedules, fares and services. United has also implemented cargo joint 4 ventures with ANA for transpacific cargo services and continues to implement a cargo joint venture with Lufthansa for transatlantic cargo services. These cargo joint ventures offer expanded and more seamless access to cargo space across the carriers\u0092 respective combined networks.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "corporate_lobbying:270", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "corporate_lobbying", "task_family": "corporate", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 270}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nExcept  (i) for such public disclosure as may be necessary, in the good faith judgment of the disclosing Party consistent with advice of counsel, for the disclosing Party not to be in violation of any applicable law, regulation or order, or  (ii) with the prior written consent of the order Party, neither Part shall: (x) make any disclosure (and each Party shall direct its Representatives not to make any disclosure) to any person of  (A) the fact that discussions, negotiations or investigations are taking or have taken place concerning a Transaction,  (B) the existence or contents of this Agreement, or the fact that either Party has requested or received Evaluation Material from the other Party, or  (C) any of the terms, conditions or other facts with respect to any proposed Transaction, including the status of the discussions or negotiations related thereto, or (y) make any public statement concerning a proposed Transaction.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement:36", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 36, "document_name": "1109551_0000912057-02-024714_a2082535zex-99_d3.htm"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that all Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n5. All confidential information remains the property of the disclosing contract party.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_explicit_identification:82", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_explicit_identification", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 82, "document_name": "Confidentiality_Agreement_1.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause give a party the right to audit the books, records, or physical locations of the counterparty to ensure compliance with the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAt the request of ExxonMobil, FCE will permit, at reasonable intervals and during regular business hours, during the Term of this Agreement and at least three (3) years thereafter, but no more than once per fiscal year, an independent certified public accounting firm of nationally recognized standing selected by ExxonMobil (and approved by FCE, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld) to inspect, during regular business hours, such books, records, and accounts and any part of the applicable operations and facilities of FCE relevant to this Agreement, and to have access to FCE's knowledgeable personnel, as may be necessary to determine the completeness and accuracy of any accounting and payments required to be made under this Agreement and compliance with other terms of this Agreement, subject to the following: (a) ExxonMobil and its employees or other representatives will have the right to reproduce for its internal records any of the documents kept by FCE in accordance with Paragraph 18.01 (Recordkeeping), such reproduced documents shall be subject to the confidentiality and use provisions contained in Article 4; and (b) all expenses of each such audit, including any pre-approved reasonable expenses incurred by FCE for such audit, will be for the account of ExxonMobil.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_audit_rights:566", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_audit_rights", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 566, "document_name": "FuelcellEnergyInc_20191106_8-K_EX-10.1_11868007_EX-10.1_Development Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information is protected?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSecurity This Web site takes every precaution to protect our users' information. When users submit sensitive information via the Web site, their information is protected both online and off-line.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_data_security:97", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_data_security", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 97}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause restrict the ability of a party to compete with the counterparty or operate in a certain geography or business or technology sector?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe term of the license hereby granted shall commence August 1, 1995 and continue until January 30, 2000, unless sooner terminated in the manner provided in the immediately succeeding sentence or as otherwise provided in this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_non-compete:332", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_non-compete", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 332, "document_name": "AMBASSADOREYEWEARGROUPINC_11_17_1997-EX-10.28-ENDORSEMENT AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n9. Confidential Information shall not be reproduced in any form except as required to accomplish the intent of this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement:60", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 60, "document_name": "1011671_0000936392-99-000246_document_46.txt"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 1\n\nParagraph:\nOn appeal, Khochinsky challenges the district court's dismissal under the FSIA as well as the court's vacatur of the default.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Issue", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:12", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 12}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information for any purpose other than the purposes stated in Agreement.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n2.3 A Receiving Party\u2019s obligations in respect of Con\ufb01dential Information made available by the Disclosing Party pursuant to this Agreement shall continue notwithstanding the termination of the Purpose. 3.1 A Receiving Party shall treat and safeguard as private and con\ufb01dential all of the Con\ufb01dential Information and will take all reasonable precautions in dealing with any Con\ufb01dential Information so as to prevent any third party from having access to the Con\ufb01dential Information.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_limited_use:167", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_limited_use", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 167, "document_name": "5bfbcabf0627e70bdcfc5b32_nda-ready4s.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAll such confidential information shall be referred to hereinafter as \" \". Information shall also include the identity of the Parties, the contents of this agreement and the fact that they have entered into this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement:3", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_confidentiality_of_agreement", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 3, "document_name": "CA-Nov14-Doc.5.14%20-%20Template%20Confidentiality%20Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Smooth\" for keyboards.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "descriptive", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:27", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 27}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nSamuel offers to buy Penelope's frige. Penelope accepts. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "UCC", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:25", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 25}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with accessing health services, paying for medical care, getting public benefits for health care, protecting one's rights in medical settings, and other issues related to health?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI rent a room in a house with two other guys and the owner himself.  On the lease it does not specify how utilities are to be paid only that rent is to be paid by the 5th of each month.  The LL wants each tenant to pay a portion of the utility bill but ALSO pay double that as an advance for the next month.  Example: June came to $100 in utilities. Each person will pay $50 to the LL and get a $25 \"credit\" so if the cost of next month is $125, each person will pay (125/4)*2-25 =$37.5. (Do note that $100 would not be problem but in AZ, air conditioning is driving the monthly electricity cost to about $400/mo.)  Can he do this? I think this is incredibly unreasonable since you get a month to pay your utility bill anyways and I could be using the money during that period of time.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_health:144", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_health", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 144}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify which state/country's law governs the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding conflict of laws provisions and excluding the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_governing_law:46", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_governing_law", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 46, "document_name": "ADIANUTRITION,INC_04_01_2005-EX-10.D2-RESELLER AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTony (from Texas) is a regional manager for a cookbook company, Tasty Eats Books (incorporated and principal place of business in Delaware). Tony\u2019s job requires him to travel from city to city to show new cookbooks to chefs. In January 2022, he was scheduled to visit restaurants in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. While in Michigan, Tony goes to Lake Erie to blow off some steam. He ends up getting into a fight with Arthur, a lawyer from Detroit, Michigan. Tony and Arthur each blame the other for starting the fight. Tony sues Arthur in Illionois.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "personal_jurisdiction:32", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "personal_jurisdiction", "task_family": "personal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 32, "slice": "No contacts, no nexus."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nWhy then would this necessarily be -- why would resolving this dispute be at odds with the decree? Because it sounds to me like what you're saying is that they could get water from places other than the mainstream.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Implications", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:260", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-1484", "index": 260}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nElijah is from Minnesota. Theodore is from Wyoming. Elijah sues Theodore for wrongful eviction for $3,000.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "diversity_1:149", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "diversity_1", "task_family": "diversity", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 149, "parties_are_diverse": true, "aic_is_met": false}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information may be shared with or collected by third parties?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWhen a child under the age of 13 registers for an account, we use hashing to create a password reminder system that does not require us to retain that child's email address. To do this, we apply the hash function to the email address and associate the resulting hash value (not the e-mail) with the user's account. The e-mail address is immediately discarded after the hash function is applied.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection:1467", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1467}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n\"Under the American decisional law, the phrase \u2018personal injury\u2019 denotes primarily an injury to the body of a person. At least some of the courts, however, have not narrowly limited the term, and have concluded that a personal injury or an injury to the person, within the meaning of the law, does not necessarily involve physical contact with the person injured or mere bodily or physical injuries, but may embrace all actionable injuries to the individual himself.\u201d 1 S. Speiser, C. Krause, & A. Gans, American Law of Torts 6 (1983) See also Black's Law Dictionary 786 (6th ed. 1990). -\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:238", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 238}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues in the criminal system including when people are charged with crimes, go to a criminal trial, go to prison, or are a victim of a crime?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nLike the title states when I was 19 I was an escort for about a year. I was groomed into it by a man I met online. Tony. When I met him I was under the impression he wanted to be my sugar daddy. Instead I was greeted by him and a couple of his girls at a nice hotel. One girl in particular was the star of the show. We were all taken care of by her. Her name was Mo. They promised up to 1,000$ a day for my services. I didn't have a choice I had nothing. We were forced to see up to 8 guys in a single day. Then cut our profit with Tony.  However eventually I came to my senses, took my cash and cut ties. It was incredibly corrupt. They remained bitter at me, sending the occasional threatening message. Very petty nothing worth worrying about. He had my real information such as my email &amp; full name.   Cut to about a year later and a former client sends me a news article. Seems Tony got greedy and started his own service. Except he had really fucked up. He was a third striker caught with an underage girl. Mo lured her in so she was also caught and they went to jail. I was completely removed from their life when they made these choices. Cut to three days ago. I get an email from a detective. He knows my full name. He wants to speak to me immediately. Wants to know everything I know. What the heck do I do!!! I'm terrified.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_crime:142", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_crime", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 142}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAny person who suffers harm pursuant to this section may recover his or her damages in a civil action against the offender.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "proa:23", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 23}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nsection 4 of the clayton act states, in pertinent part, that any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor ... and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee.\" 15 u.s.c. 15(a) (emphasis added). it is clear from the plain meaning of section 4 that an injury is all that is required for an award of attorneys fees. an award of attorneys fees to the injured party is mandatory. christiansburg garment co. v. eeoc, 434 u.s. 412, 415 & n. 5, 98 s.ct. 694, 697 & n. 5 (1978); alyeska pipeline serv. co. v. wilderness socy, 421 u.s. 240, 261, 95 s.ct. 1612, 1623, 44 l.ed.2d 141 (1975); hydrolevel corp. v. american socy of mechanical engrs, inc., 635 f.2d 118, 130 (2d cir.1980), aff'd, 456 u.s. 556, 102 s.ct. 1935, 72 l.ed.2d 330 (1982). in the instant case, the jury found that the nfls monopolization of the united states major league professional football market injured the usfl. an injury having been found, the awarding of attorneys fees to the usfl was compulsory.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:46", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 46}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues in the criminal system including when people are charged with crimes, go to a criminal trial, go to prison, or are a victim of a crime?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWhenever I go to my orthodontist, they have a bunch of dentistry chairs in the back so each patient is getting treated side by side with no privacy. In this same room, there's a big television in the middle with patient's names, reason for visit, treatment for the visit, who they're seeing, appointment time, et cetera. This seems to me like a very clear violation of the law. Am I correct in thinking this?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_crime:513", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_crime", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 513}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify a cap on liability upon the breach of a party\u2019s obligation? This includes time limitation for the counterparty to bring claims or maximum amount for recovery.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nNOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY, UNDER ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY, FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, SUFFERED BY OR OTHERWISE COMPENSABLE TO SUCH OTHER PARTY, ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER OR NOT ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_cap_on_liability:273", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_cap_on_liability", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 273, "document_name": "MIDDLEBROOKPHARMACEUTICALS,INC_03_18_2010-EX-10.1-PROMOTION AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does intellectual property created by one party become the property of the counterparty, either per the terms of the contract or upon the occurrence of certain events?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nPremier shall remain as an additional insured on the Heritage's policies, for [***].\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment:379", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 379, "document_name": "BellringBrandsInc_20190920_S-1_EX-10.12_11817081_EX-10.12_Manufacturing Agreement1.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with accessing health services, paying for medical care, getting public benefits for health care, protecting one's rights in medical settings, and other issues related to health?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI don't think she has a case but now that's she's of more sound mind she's annoyed she was fired because of a hospital visit related to her PTSD.  Basically she was a contract employee for a company when she had an issue that ended up with her in the hospital.  They held her for 4 days but couldn't find a bed for her in a ward better suited for her so eventually released her to my care.  (Ultimately a mistake because she ended up in the hospital again for worse symptoms for a whole two weeks but I digress).    I never contacted her work during those 4 days, I honestly didn't even think of it, I was spending those 4 days sitting in a chair in her hospital room. Upon her release I do contact them and let them know what happened, she still wasn't really in the shape to talk to them but since her job was basically ticket assigning and chat moderation she agreed to go back to work right away since it was simple and done from home at that time anyway. They ask for a picture of her release paper work showing the days spent in the hospital and leave it at that.  I let her know she said she'd handle it, sent them a picture and that was the end of it for a few hours.  A few hours later they contact us saying she sent a picture of the wrong thing, I look and curse myself for not double checking her because in her addled state she did send the wrong thing.  She sent the picture of the paperwork that basically just said they set her up with an appointment with her normal doctor to follow up about the issues with her PTSD and the hospital stay.  I grab her normal paperwork and see that since she transferred hospitals at some point they only had the 2 days at the second hospital listed not the first two.  So we head out to the original hospital and get the paperwork showing all the days she spent.  I'm sitting at the gas station outside our house when we get a call from the contracting company and are told that they have ended her contract and she doesn't have a job anymore.  They do kind of have a history of this.  Two or three months prior to this another coworker of hers who was actually employee there for over 4 years had their contract ended the day after it was revealed she was hospitalized for a suicide attempt.  I don't think she has much of a case because I don't think contract employees have much at all in the way of rights.  Also they didn't actually know she had PTSD the only thing that told them was the paperwork she accidentally sent them, she never told them herself at any point.  Either way I said I would ask.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_health:60", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_health", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 60}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that all Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n1. The Receiving Party agrees to treat all information provided by the Providing Party in connection with the Business Under Discussion to the Receiving Partner and/or any of its partners, directors, officers, employees, affiliates, insurers, agents, advisors or auditors (the \u201cRepresentatives\u201d), regardless of the manner in which it is so furnished, together with any analyses, compilations, data, studies or other documents or records, whether of an oral, written or electronically retrievable nature (collectively the \u201cInformation\u201d), as strictly confidential.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_explicit_identification:28", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_explicit_identification", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 28, "document_name": "eHandshake_Non_Disclosure_Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nProperty abandoned or allowed to lapse in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Guarantee and Collateral Agreement) or scrap, in each case Disposed of in the ordinary course of business or by operations or divisions discontinued or to be discontinued, (c) without recourse and in the ordinary course of business of overdue accounts receivable in connection with the compromise or collection thereof, (d) constituting the non-exclusive licensing of Intellectual Property in the ordinary course of business (other than any licensing of Intellectual Property that could reasonably be expected to (i) materially impair the value of any material Intellectual Property or (ii) materially impair or restrict the business, assets, operations or financial condition of the Borrower and the Restricted Subsidiaries taken as a whole), (e) constituting the settlement, release or surrender of tort or other litigation claims, (f) constituting the lease or sublease of real or personal property in the ordinary course of business, so long as the fair market value of such property at the time of lease or sublease does not exceed $1,000,000 in the aggregate during the term of this Agreement, (g) constituting asset contributions made in connection with Investments otherwise permitted under Section 7.7, (h) among the Borrower and the Guarantors, (i) that results in cash consideration of less than $1,000,000 (or if less, the corresponding threshold set forth in the ABL Agreement) and (j) constituting an Equity Issuance.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "jcrew_blocker:49", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "jcrew_blocker", "task_family": "jcrew", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 49}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues that arise within a family, like divorce, adoption, name change, guardianship, domestic violence, child custody, and other issues?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nA little backstory i think is necessary: Back in mid-2000's my wife and I divorced. Around 2013, I filed for custody and given the circumstances she was in, I was granted custody as it was clearly the better place for him to live.  My son (16 years old) visits his mom during the summers and had stated to me before leaving he wanted to live with her. I think this was due to him getting in some serious trouble soon before he left and wanting what he thinks will be a more lenient household. Also he had a serious falling out with his best friends shortly before he left as well. He told me again during a Skype call a couple weeks back that he still wanted to stay at his mom's. I was considering allowing him to move back there at the end of the next summer but wanted to talk to his mom and get a lawyer involved to protect all parties' interests.   Yesterday I was served with paperwork, filed by my ex-wife, that I abuse our son. It seems to reference a couple of incidents that I somehow harmed him. Im not sure, it doesnt go into specifics. As a single parent Ive tried really hard to provide the best life I can for him. I didnt even file for child support so his mom would have more money to do fun stuff with him when he visited as we were *fairly* secure at the time. Im really scared what could happen with these accusations.   I cant imagine any proof they might have since abuse never occurred.  Any advice or comments would be much appreciated. Thanks for reading.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_family:692", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_family", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 692}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Is there a requirement for insurance that must be maintained by one party for the benefit of the counterparty?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n6.1 Both parties shall at all times while this Agreement is in effect and for one (1) year thereafter, at its expense, carry and maintain, at its own expense, insurance on all its operations necessary to comply with insurance laws as applicable.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_insurance:19", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_insurance", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 19, "document_name": "XLITECHNOLOGIES,INC_12_11_2015-EX-10.1-Sponsorship Agreement.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(F) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the taxpayer.\n\ndescription:\nCharlie is Bob's father since April 15th, 2014. Alice married Charlie on October 12th, 1992.\n\nquestion:\nAlice bears a relationship to Bob under section 152(d)(2)(F).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Contradiction", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:143", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 143, "case id": "s152_d_2_F_neg", "text": "        (F) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the taxpayer. <br> Charlie is Bob's father since April 15th, 2014. Alice married Charlie on October 12th, 1992. <br> Alice bears a relationship to Bob under section 152(d)(2)(F)."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues that arise within a family, like divorce, adoption, name change, guardianship, domestic violence, child custody, and other issues?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSorry for the long title, I called my dad who is the owner of the property and since I have shit service where I live it dropped, so I gave them his number and then they just left and never called him back. I have tried looking their numbers to people that I think are related, but no one answers. Can I just untie their boat and let it drift away or should I do something else?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_family:1640", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_family", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1640}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues related to working at a job, including discrimination and harassment, worker's compensation, workers rights, unions, getting paid, pensions, being fired, and more?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nShe asked for all original copies so she could bring them to wherever and have them copied. She said I wouldn't have to sign anything and it would be fine, because they just need proof that the person coming here knows a citizen from America.  This seemed really sketchy to me, 1 because I haven't known them THAT long... and 2 - she asked not to tell my mom (who keeps all of those documents for me) and lie to her and say that it was for work purposes.  My question is - is this as sketchy as I think it is? My mom told me it was definitely not OK to give those documents over and not to 'vouch' for anyone coming especially someone I don't know.  What are your thoughts?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_employment:697", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_employment", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 697}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nthe office of section 362(h) is not to redress tort violations but to protect the rights conferred by the automatic stay. if one creditor muscled out the others in violation of the stay, the bankruptcy court would impose monetary sanctions under subsection (h). if the defendant here had intimidated the debtor into giving up her right of discharge, the bankruptcy court would have ordered under the authority of the same subsection the monetary relief necessary to restore her to the financial position she would have occupied had the defendant not resorted to intimidation. the interest in judicial economy, as embodied in the clean-up doctrine of equity, wal-mart stores, incorporated associates health & welfare plan v. wells, 213 f.3d 398, 400-01 (7th cir.2000); medtronic, inc. v. intermedics, inc., 725 f.2d 440, 442 (7th cir.1984); mowbray v. mosely, hallgarten, estabrook & weeden, inc., 795 f.2d 1111, 1114 (1st cir.1986); 1 dan b. dobbs, dobbs on the law of remedies: damages-equity-restitution 2.7, pp. 180-81 (2d ed.1993), might allow the court to top off relief designed to redress any financial injury inflicted by the violation of the automatic stay with an award of damages for incidental harms, perhaps including emotional distress if adequately proved, to spare the debtor from having to bring two suits. fleet mortgage may have been such a case, since the misconduct of the defendant in violating the automatic stay imposed substantial legal costs on the plaintiff, which are not alleged here. no financial injury is alleged in this case, and we do not think that emotional injury is compensable under section 362(h) when there is no financial loss to hitch it to by means of the clean-up doctrine.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:115", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 115}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does intellectual property created by one party become the property of the counterparty, either per the terms of the contract or upon the occurrence of certain events?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nConsultant agrees to sign, execute and acknowledge or cause to be signed, executed and acknowledged without cost, but at the expense of Company, any and all documents and to perform such acts as my be necessary, useful or convenient for the purposes of perfecting the foregoing assignments and obtaining, enforcing and defending intellectual property rights in any and all countries with respect to Inventions.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment:259", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 259, "document_name": "KIROMICBIOPHARMA,INC_05_11_2020-EX-10.23-CONSULTING AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the function that the question serves. Options: Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Background, Clarification, Communicate, Criticism, Humor, Implications, Support.\n\nWell, answer Justice Alito's entire question. The astrologer might not be good enough. I don't feel like it, is that good enough?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Communicate", "metadata": {"id": "oral_argument_question_purpose:145", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "oral_argument_question_purpose", "task_family": "oral", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Background", "Clarification", "Communicate", "Criticism", "Humor", "Implications", "Support"], "choices": {"Background": "Background", "Clarification": "Clarification", "Communicate": "Communicate", "Criticism": "Criticism", "Humor": "Humor", "Implications": "Implications", "Support": "Support"}, "extra": {"Docket No.": "21-1052", "index": 145}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nBenjamin is from Georgia. Emma is from North Dakota. Benjamin sues Emma for defamation for $2,555,000.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "diversity_1:155", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "diversity_1", "task_family": "diversity", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 155, "parties_are_diverse": true, "aic_is_met": true}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains? The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSunsweet Supplier Sustainability Guidelines\n\nAt Sunsweet, we recognize the critical role we play in offering healthy fruits and beverages to our loyal and discerning consumers around the world. The vast majority of our products are grown in California, delivered to Sunsweet by our own owner-growers. We work with our grower-members and visit their farms on a continual basis to facilitate crop practices and navigate the challenges of producing the best quality fruit in our highly-regulated California environment.\n\nWe also source certain unique fruits and ingredients from other countries, and doing this sustainably requires that we balance the social, environmental and economic benefits and risks of all such products, including how they are procured, manufactured and used. Sunsweet is committed to ensuring that our supply chain reflects Sunsweet\u2019s values and respect for human rights and the environment. Strategic suppliers play a key role in our efforts to ensure that we manage our global supply chain in a sustainable way.\n\nIt is important to Sunsweet, our customers and our consumers that suppliers perform consistently with these Guidelines. We believe that compliance with all applicable laws is the foundation for sustainability. But in addition to compliance, we encourage suppliers to make continuous improvement as they identify new and innovative ways to create value and mitigate risk in the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability.\n\nHealth & Safety: Suppliers must provide and maintain a safe and healthy working environment that meets or exceeds applicable laws and regulations for occupational safety and health.\n\nWages & Work Hours: Suppliers must comply with all applicable minimum wage, overtime and maximum hour laws, as well as other wage and hour regulations.\n\nForced or Child Labor: Suppliers must not use forced labor or involuntary prison labor. Suppliers must not employ underage individuals as defined by applicable child labor laws.\n\nSecurity: Suppliers must implement measures to secure our international supply chain and comply with all applicable customs and anti-terrorism laws.\n\nNon-Discrimination: Suppliers must maintain a work environment that respects the dignity and worth of each individual and not discriminate on the basis of any protected factor or activity, as defined by applicable law or regulation. Suppliers must comply with applicable laws related to an employee\u2019s choice to join, or refrain from joining, any legally sanctioned association or organization.\n\nEnvironmental Responsibility: Suppliers must meet all applicable environmental rules, regulations and laws in the countries where they do business. In addition, we encourage our suppliers to consistently look for new and better ways to conserve resources, reduce\n\n\n\nthe impact of products in use, and reduce manufacturing waste.\n\nProduct Certifications: In addition to standard safety and product stewardship assurances, we encourage suppliers to evaluate potential certifications as tools to verify and communicate the ongoing application of sustainable practices in sourcing, manufacturing and quality management activities.\n\nEconomic: Suppliers are expected to develop programs to drive long-term profitability, providing products and services that are preferred, creating greater value in the healthy foods and beverages produced for our customers and consumers, supporting economies through the purchase of goods and services, paying taxes and providing other forms of good citizenship and community support.\n\nAnti-Corruption: We expect suppliers to operate with integrity. Suppliers must comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as well as any other anti-corruption laws in the jurisdictions in which they do business.\n\nFinancial Responsibility: Suppliers are expected to develop and apply appropriate internal controls, accountability and governance models that ensure accurate reporting and encourage financial stability.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits:372", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 372}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information for any purpose other than the purposes stated in Agreement.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWithout limiting the aforesaid, the existence of discussions between the Parties regarding the Proposed Transaction shall constitute Confidential Information hereunder. a. The Receiving Party shall hold confidential and not disclose to any Person, without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party, all Confidential Information and any information about the Proposed Transaction, or the terms or conditions or any other facts relating thereto, including, without limitation, the fact that discussions are taking place with respect thereto or the status thereof, or the fact that Confidential Information has been made available to the Receiving Party or its Representatives; provided, however, that the Receiving Party may disclose such Confidential Information to its Representatives who are actively and directly participating in its evaluation of the Proposed Transaction or who otherwise need to know the Confidential Information for the purpose of evaluating the Proposed Transaction; All media releases, public announcements and other disclosures by either Party relating to this Agreement or the subject matter hereof, including promotional or marketing material, but excluding announcements intended solely for internal distribution or to meet legal or regulatory requirements, shall be coordinated with and approved by the other Party prior to release.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_limited_use:181", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_limited_use", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 181, "document_name": "916457_0000916457-14-000028_exhibit104-confidentiality.htm"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues in the criminal system including when people are charged with crimes, go to a criminal trial, go to prison, or are a victim of a crime?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI need to write a complete last will and testament for a college assignment. I have a simple will I wrote by hand but it is barebones. I know it doesn't cover everything and my professor wants this will to be complete. Are there any actually free templates out on the internet? Any tips at all?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_crime:380", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_crime", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 380}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify that one party can terminate this contract without cause (solely by giving a notice and allowing a waiting period to expire)?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement may be terminated by Anixa, without cause, upon at least thirty (30) days written notice to OntoChem.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_termination_for_convenience:39", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_termination_for_convenience", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 39, "document_name": "ANIXABIOSCIENCESINC_06_09_2020-EX-10.1-COLLABORATION AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nMaverick grabs a sandwich on his way to work from Lucy's deli. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "UCC", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:49", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 49}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nhowever, we disapprove angelus to the extent that it holds section 733.212(3) does not bar objections that a personal representative was never qualified to serve.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:161", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 161}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nZoey contracts with Gabriel for the supply of twenty motors. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "UCC", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:40", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 40}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify a cap on liability upon the breach of a party\u2019s obligation? This includes time limitation for the counterparty to bring claims or maximum amount for recovery.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n\"AbbVie Know-How\" means all Information that is (a) Controlled by AbbVie or any of its Affiliates during the Term, (b) developed or acquired by AbbVie or any of its Affiliates during the Term as a result of performance under this Agreement, (c) not generally known and (d) necessary or reasonably useful for the Exploitation of the Licensed Compound or a Licensed Product, but excluding any Joint Know-How or Information published in any AbbVie Patents or Joint Patents.<omitted>\"AbbVie Patents\" means all of the Patents that (a) are Controlled by AbbVie or any of its Affiliates during the Term, (b) claim inventions made or conceived by or on behalf of AbbVie or any of its Affiliates during the Term as a result of performance under this Agreement, and (c) are necessary or reasonably useful (or, with respect to patent applications, would be necessary or reasonably useful if such<omitted>patent applications were to issue as patents) for the Exploitation of the Licensed Compound or a Licensed Product, but excluding any Joint Patents.<omitted>Upon the Effective Date, AbbVie hereby grants to Harpoon a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, without the right to grant sublicenses (other than to permitted subcontractors of Harpoon in accordance with Section 3.7), under the AbbVie Patents, AbbVie Know-How, and AbbVie's interests in the Joint Patents and the Joint Know-How, to Develop and Manufacture the Licensed Compounds or Licensed Products in the Territory solely to the extent necessary for Harpoon to perform its obligations as set forth in, and subject to, the Initial Development Plan.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_cap_on_liability:634", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_cap_on_liability", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 634, "document_name": "HarpoonTherapeuticsInc_20200312_10-K_EX-10.18_12051356_EX-10.18_Development Agreement.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues in the criminal system including when people are charged with crimes, go to a criminal trial, go to prison, or are a victim of a crime?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSo I live in Chicago and am currently renting from a condo owner out who lives in Florida. The building I live in is managed by a property management company, but we don't pay through them at all and they refuse to answer all phone calls about even the simplest requests. They have a policy that a dog can't be over 25 lbs.  My GF just rescued a great dane/retriever mix who is 3 years and very mild mannered (75lbs). Our maintenance guy said there is no way we can keep her and have to get rid of her asap. Is there any way around us having to get rid of her?   TLDR GF adopted a dog that is much larger than the policy of prop. mgmt company allows, however we don't have any affiliation with prop. mgmt company, IE not renting through them.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_crime:360", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_crime", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 360}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOn the issue of the sanity of Bobby, the fact that Bobby told a friend that she believed she was Santa Clause.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:75", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 75, "slice": "Standard hearsay"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify a cap on liability upon the breach of a party\u2019s obligation? This includes time limitation for the counterparty to bring claims or maximum amount for recovery.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nUNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, SHALL XACCT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, OR COSTS OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF THE PRODUCT AND DOCUMENTATION EVEN IF XACCT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_cap_on_liability:114", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_cap_on_liability", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 114, "document_name": "XACCT Technologies, Inc.SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause give a party the right to audit the books, records, or physical locations of the counterparty to ensure compliance with the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWe may access the information system in the Franchised Restaurant or from other locations.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_audit_rights:257", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_audit_rights", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 257, "document_name": "BUFFALOWILDWINGSINC_06_05_1998-EX-10.3-FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause require consent or notice of a party if the contract is assigned to a third party?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAny assignment not in accordance with this Section 13.2 (Assignment) shall be void.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_anti-assignment:432", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_anti-assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 432, "document_name": "Microgenics Corporation - Collaborative Development and Commercialization Agreement.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify that one party can terminate this contract without cause (solely by giving a notice and allowing a waiting period to expire)?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe duration of this Venture (the \"Term\") will begin on March 1, 2020 and continue in full force and effect until February 28, 2025 or as otherwise provided in this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_termination_for_convenience:344", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_termination_for_convenience", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 344, "document_name": "BORROWMONEYCOM,INC_06_11_2020-EX-10.1-JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose whether the retail seller or manufacturer provides training to employees on human trafficking and slavery? Broad policies such as ongoing dialogue on mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery, or increasing managers' and purchasers' knowledge about health, safety and labor practices, qualify as training. Providing training to contractors who failed to comply with human trafficking laws counts as training.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCALIFORNIA TRANSPARENCY IN SUPPLY CHAINS ACT OF 2010\n\nDestination XL Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries (the \"Company\") unequivocally support the human rights of all of our employees, and the employees of our global suppliers.\n\nThe Company also supports the intent of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (the \"Act\").\n\nThe Company sells both private-label and branded-label products. Our branded-label suppliers are provided with our Code of Conduct, Global Vendor Agreement and Vendor Compliance Guide (collectively the \"Agreement\") and they are informed they are required to follow the Agreement. We ask that you visit the websites of branded-label companies to read about their efforts in eradicating slavery and human trafficking.\n\nUnder our private-label products, the Company addresses the concerns underlying the Act. Key elements of our practices regarding our private-label products are summarized below:\n\nVerification Process. The Company has reasonable and appropriate measures to address and eliminate slave labor and human trafficking in and among its vendor factories and facilities;\n\nAudit Process. The Company selects the independent audit party to evaluate the factories and facilities of the Company's vendors with respect to compliance with the Act;\n\nCertification Process. The Company has reasonable and appropriate measures to make sure that the merchandise does not violate the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which it transacts business;\n\nAccountability Standard. The Company's private-label product factories' standards are monitored by the independent audit provider with direct reporting to the Company. The Company has developed and maintains internal accountability standards and procedures for its employees, contractors and/or suppliers for any failure to comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking; and\n\nTraining. The Company provides internal training to its personnel who are responsible for the supply chain of our private label products, including human trafficking and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chain of merchandise.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training:50", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 50}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues related to working at a job, including discrimination and harassment, worker's compensation, workers rights, unions, getting paid, pensions, being fired, and more?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nIn Dec 2006, I was in the process of making a move across several states. While driving up, I admittedly going WAY too fast, trying to make it to a job interview in my new state. (I previously had never had any traffic tickets.)  Anyways, I got pulled over in Dinwiddie VA, ticketed and cited with \"Reckless Endangerment\" for how fast I was speeding. This was also the last time I drove, as I was in a friend's car (with her egging me on, speedwise. No excuse, but I shouldn't have given in to peer pressure) as I had already sold my own to finance the move.  Because every last dime I had went to a new place to live, I couldn't afford to a.) pay a ticket or b.) even make it back to where I was ticketed to go to court.  It's been nearly 8 years, and having this outstanding ticket has been killing me. I've wanted to set it right, go to court, take my punishment and move on with my life. I've been utilizing public transportation for the last 7+ years, as I'm certain my license was revoked.  I'm still dirt-poor, but finally in a place, financially, where I'm getting close to having enough to afford a lawyer, the trip and hopefully the ticket, so I went back to the VA General District Court website for the first time in a few years, and it appears that it was dismissed last year?  Is that possible?  Under the \"Hearing Information\" it has two dates with different results:  01/28/2010- Continued  05/09/2016- Finalized  And under \"Disposition Information\" it says  Final Disposition: Dismissed  Everything else under \"Disposition Information\" is blank, or set to 0. (Like Sentence/Suspended Sentence/Probation/Operator License Suspension Time...)  I was expecting to pay something to the tune of $2500+ to settle this out. Does that mean it's gone and I don't have to go to court/pay a ticket?  Could I walk into a VA DMV (I reside in VA, just on the other side of the state) and get a new license after so many years, or am I looking at consequences for letting it go this long?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_employment:603", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_employment", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 603}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTony (from Texas) is a regional manager for a cookbook company, Tasty Eats Books (incorporated and principal place of business in Delaware). Tony\u2019s job requires him to travel from city to city to show new cookbooks to chefs. In January 2022, he was scheduled to visit restaurants in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. While in Michigan, Tony goes to Lake Erie to blow off some steam. He ends up getting into a fight with Arthur, a lawyer from California. Tony and Arthur each blame the other for starting the fight. Tony sues Arthur in California.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "personal_jurisdiction:31", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "personal_jurisdiction", "task_family": "personal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 31, "slice": "Domicile."}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues that arise within a family, like divorce, adoption, name change, guardianship, domestic violence, child custody, and other issues?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSo my friend is currently in a holding cell awaiting court at 1:30, she was caught with 3.7 grams of Molly, an ounce of shrooms, 3 ecastcy pills and under 30 grams of weed. My questions are, will I be able to post bail for her? Since it's her first offense can she get an ibond? What can I do to make sure she doesn't land in jail?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_family:1593", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_family", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1593}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information is protected?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWith Your Consent : Other than as set out above, you will always receive notice when information about you might go to third parties, and you will have an opportunity to choose not to share the information. What About Third-Party Advertisers- Our site includes third-party advertising and links to other websites. We do not provide any personally identifiable customer information to these advertisers or third-party websites.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_data_security:64", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_data_security", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 64}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose whether the retail seller or manufacturer provides training to employees on human trafficking and slavery? Broad policies such as ongoing dialogue on mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery, or increasing managers' and purchasers' knowledge about health, safety and labor practices, qualify as training. Providing training to contractors who failed to comply with human trafficking laws counts as training.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCalifornia Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 \n\nBridgford Foods Corporation is committed to being a responsible corporate citizen, and to actively engaging and promoting socially responsible and ethical business practices. This commitment extends to our supply chain, and we work with our suppliers to ensure that together we manage our business and business relationships in a socially responsible and ethical way. \n\nEffective January 1, 2012, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 requires Bridgford Foods to disclose our efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from our supply chain. Bridgford combats human trafficking on two fronts: first, by holding our suppliers to a high standard of accountability; and second, by ensuring our own employees are made aware of the problem of human trafficking, and providing them with relevant training about the problem of human trafficking. Bridgford is committed to conducting its business in a lawful and ethical manner, and therefore expects both its suppliers and employees to comport themselves in the same manner. \n\nBridgford has long required compliance with applicable labor and employment laws, including those that address the illegality of human trafficking and slavery. Now, we are taking steps to verify such compliance from our suppliers. To evaluate and address the risks of human trafficking and slavery specific to each link in our supply chain, and verify that our suppliers are combating human trafficking, Bridgford Foods utilizes a Supplier Code of Conduct, which prohibits all types of illegal conduct by our suppliers including unlawful discrimination and harassment as well as human trafficking and slavery.\u00a0 The Code of Conduct makes clear Bridgford Foods\u2019 commitment to eradicating human trafficking. Bridgford Foods requires each and every supplier to accept the Supplier Code of Conduct, and to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the Code. \n\nTo evaluate supplier compliance with our Supplier Code, particularly with the provisions that prohibit human trafficking and slavery, Bridgford Foods has obtained the authority to conduct unannounced audits of its suppliers to ensure their compliance with the Code of Conduct. If Bridgford ever receives a Complaint or other constructive knowledge of an allegation of human trafficking or slavery, it requires the supplier to perform a thorough and complete investigation and report the results of the investigation to Bridgford. Additionally, Bridgford Foods requires that suppliers certify that all materials incorporated into their products abide by applicable laws regarding slavery and human trafficking. \n\nMoreover, Bridgford Foods has a corporate Human Rights Policy. This policy further advances our goal of remaining socially responsible, while at the same time maintaining an accountability standard to which we hold our employees. As our policy states, we have zero tolerance for human trafficking and slavery. This policy is distributed to, and applicable to, all employees. \n\nTo make sure our employees have the requisite knowledge to aid in our efforts to eradicate human trafficking, Bridgford Foods makes available to all our employees various training and information addressing human rights, including the human trafficking training offered by the Department of Homeland Security. All employees are encouraged to avail themselves of these trainings and opportunities. \n\nBridgford Foods is committed to working closely with its suppliers and others to raise awareness of and eradicate slavery and human trafficking. We remain vigilant on this issue, and, if necessary, will hold any offending supplier accountable for its violation of our policies and the law.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training:38", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 38}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, migrant work and benefits, and other issues faced by people who are not full citizens in the US?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHi! My question is related to visas/immigration stuff/employment.   I am not a U.S. citizen and as an international student I completed a bachelors degree in education at an american college. I have a valid teaching license from a state. Currently I'm teaching at a private English-speaking school in my home country and I'm thinking about wanting to return to the states and continue my teaching career there.   I'm not looking for some sort of teacher exchange/\"cultural experience\" for myself... I am perfectly fluent in English and fully part of the culture (minus the rodeos; went to one and was terrified #peta). Ideally I'd like some sort of permanent resident situation but I'm not quite sure how to get there. All I've been seeing online is a lot of lists of forms but I have no clue what the actual process looks like.   I'm not sure if this is a common or uncommon thing, but if anyone has any advice please comment below!\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_immigration:57", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_immigration", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 57}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify that one party can terminate this contract without cause (solely by giving a notice and allowing a waiting period to expire)?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nDuring the Term and subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, Naked shall have an exclusive right and license in the Territory to use Athlete's name, nickname, initials, autograph, image, likeness, photographs, biographical details, facsimile signature, voice, videos, electronic media depictions, any words, symbols or other depictions, as well as any other identifying attributes that would identify Athlete to the public, including any trade mark(s), copyrights which Wade has, as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto, and all multimedia assets that Wade owns or has right to use (collectively, the \"Wade Image\") solely for the advertising, endorsement, promotion, or sale of the Naked Products (including the Wade Products) in the Territory as follows:<omitted>(1) On Naked's website(s) (\"Website\"); (2) In social media channels, including, but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Google+, Tumblr and other mutually agreeable channels, with reasonable frequency, to promote Naked Products and Wade Products; (3) In marketing and media opportunities in connection with the Wade Services (as defined below); and (4) For use on the packaging of the Naked Products and Wade Products and on Wade Products themselves.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_termination_for_convenience:378", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_termination_for_convenience", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 378, "document_name": "NakedBrandGroupInc_20150731_POS AM (on S-1)_EX-10.75_9196027_EX-10.75_Endorsement Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nEaston cuts Kennedy's hair. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Common Law", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:72", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 72}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWhere an insurer has been soadjudicated to be insolvent, any person who has a cause of action against an insured of such insurer under a liability insurance policy issued by such insurer shall have the right to file a claim in the liquidation proceeding, regardless of the fact that such claim may be contingent, and such claim may be allowed.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "proa:45", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 45}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(2).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAcme Vacations is a telemarketer subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Acme convinced a customer to buy a vacation package to Alaska for $849, but did not disclose that the vacation must occur between the months of November and February. Is this a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "telemarketing_sales_rule:5", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "telemarketing_sales_rule", "task_family": "telemarketing", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 5}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nwe agree and overrule mukhtar to the extent that it required that daubert findings always be made by the district court.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:1130", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1130}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nTo prove that Jose liked red Ferraris, the defense introduces testimony from Tracy discussing how Jose told her that his favorite color is red and his favorite car is a Ferrari.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "hearsay:57", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "hearsay", "task_family": "hearsay", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 57, "slice": "Standard hearsay"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains? The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nCalifornia Transparency in Supply Chains Act\n\nAs required under the California Transparency Supply Chain Act, we are disclosing our efforts to mitigate the risk of slavery and human trafficking in our supply chain.\n\nVerification\n\nDICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is committed to fair labor practices throughout the supply chain. New and existing private brand contracted factories are regularly assessed against our Workplace Standards and Code of Conduct (below) which are based on International Labour Organization standards. Assessments are initiated based on geographic location, workplace history or previous audit record and other policy requirements. These audits are performed by DICK'S Compliance Team members and also by third party verifiers. Results are reviewed by Compliance Managers, who assist factories in remediating issues identified during audits, share key performance data with internal business partners as appropriate, and also engage with industry and NGO stakeholders to identify strategic opportunities to improve working conditions. DICK'S is a Better Work Buyer Partner (www.betterwork.org) and leverages the Better Work program to engage with key factories in countries where Better Work operates.\n\nAuditing\n\nEach year DICK'S audits a significant percentage of our private brand contract factories to determine if they are in compliance with our standards, which in addition to requiring compliance with local laws on working hours, wages and health and safety concerns, also prohibit forced, slave or child labor. Audits are performed by DICK'S compliance personnel or third party verifiers and are semi-unannounced within a negotiated time frame. Annual and follow-up audit frequency is determined in accordance with our policy and is based in part on the level of risk and non-compliance determined by previous audit results.\n\nCertification\n\nAs part of the supplier onboarding process, all vendors are required to certify that they conduct business in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations which include any existing laws on slavery and human trafficking in the country of manufacture. DICK'S certifies private brand factories into various risk levels and active status categories. Detailed Corrective Action Plans are required within 14 days for any non-compliance with local law or our Code. Factories must exhibit continuous improvement, transparency, and management cooperation to ensure continued certification and business eligibility. Additional follow up audits are required until high risk issues are resolved. Lack of continuous improvement may result in termination of the business relationship. Factories that demonstrate low risk and strong management systems have opportunities to reduce the frequency of audits.\n\nInternal Accountability\n\nThe Director of Global Ethics & Compliance, who reports to the Chief Compliance Officer, is responsible for overseeing the compliance and factory monitoring programs. The Director works with the DICK'S compliance team to ensure that the Factory Compliance Policy is followed and with Product Development and Sourcing teams to integrate key performance data into the sourcing business process and to address high risk factories. In addition to requiring corrective actions and remediation of identified non-compliances, DICK'S actively encourages factories to take ownership of compliance management and implement root cause/management systems based approaches to facilitate sustainable improvement. In addition to working with factory management, DICK'S strategically communicates responsible sourcing guidelines to internal business partners and vendors and also provides \"hotline\" channels for workers that we engage during factory visits.\n\nTraining\n\nDICK'S provides annual training to relevant associates and business units on our Workplace Standards, Code of Conduct and program requirements. Training is conducted with management level associates in roles related to sourcing, product development, quality assurance and who interact with or travel to factories and may be in the best position to identify issues. Training on responsible sourcing guidelines and program expectations is also conducted in annual meetings with vendors and factories.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits:93", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 93}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party may share some Confidential Information with some third-parties (including consultants, agents and professional advisors).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nReceiving Party shall carefully restrict access to Sensitive Information to employees, contractors and third parties as is reasonably required and shall require those persons to sign nondisclosure restrictions at least as protective as those in this Agreement.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties:39", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 39, "document_name": "non-disclosure-agreement-template.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that all Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nA. \"Confidential Information\" of a party shall mean any trade secrets, know-how, inventions, products, designs, methods, techniques, systems, processes, software programs, works of authorship, business plans, customer lists, projects, plans, pricing, proposals and any other information which a party discloses to the Recipient Party that:  (i) if disclosed in writing is clearly marked as confidential or carries a similar legend; or  (ii) if disclosed verbally or in tangible form is identified as confidential at the time of disclosure, then summarized in a writing so marked by the Disclosing Party and delivered to the Recipient Party with fifteen (15) days.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_explicit_identification:17", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_explicit_identification", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 17, "document_name": "1120792_0001019687-05-002206_morgan_10qex5-2.txt"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does intellectual property created by one party become the property of the counterparty, either per the terms of the contract or upon the occurrence of certain events?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAny and all liability of EKR to PPI howsoever arising in respect of this Agreement, the Transition Services and Inventory Agreement or the Supply Agreement and their performance in contract tort or otherwise shall be limited (except for death or personal injury caused by the negligence of EKR or its employees while acting in the course of their employment, and except in relation to any specified payment, lump sum, milestone or royalty payment unpaid) to [**] US Dollars ($[**]); provided however that such limitation shall not apply to the extent that PPI or any PPI Indemnified Party is required to pay in excess of such amount to a third party in respect of a final judgment or order obtained by the third party.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment:422", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_ip_ownership_assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 422, "document_name": "PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. - A&R STRATEGIC LICENSING, DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING AGREEMENT .PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how and why a service provider collects user information?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nPersonally Identifiable Information As a general matter, you can browse the Sites without submitting your personally identifiable information to us. However, there are a number of circumstances in which you may supply us with your personally identifiable information, including when you subscribe to our publications, newsletters, and other content; place an order; register for a Site or any part thereof; complete a survey or participate in market research; enter a contest; upload content; or when you seek employment at The Atlantic.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_first_party_collection_use:2712", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_first_party_collection_use", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 2712}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, migrant work and benefits, and other issues faced by people who are not full citizens in the US?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHere's my situation regarding my marriage..  I am American-Vietnamese, born here in the United States in the state of Georgia. My husband was an international student I met when I was 17. We started a relationship in which lead to our marriage when I was 18. I had our son when I was 19. We went through paper work to change his status and attempt to get his green card through marriage. I am not familiar with what the correct terms of the whole process. During the process I was pregnant with our son, so the initial interview happened to confirm if our marriage was real or not. We definitely passed really easy because of our baby. Since then he got temporary USA resident and temporary work permit (I think that's what it is), and the application for his actual green card applied for. We got lots of confirmation letters that the application had been received. We lived our lives as we waited. During this wait time our relationship went downhill. It was a very unhealthy relationship in which I needed to escape in order to recover myself and to do everything I could to provide for my son. He was arrested when I was 21 for domestic violence. It was an accident on his part but I was scared so I called the police. He had to pay a fine, take family violence classes, and was on parole for a few months. That was the end of our relationship.. the last straw. I immediately moved to Florida with my son to get away and start my life over. I left with nothing but our clothes. I've since then built a life for my son and I here. I am about to turn 23, he is 29, and throughout these two years I have let his dad see him many times. I am grateful for their father-son bond and do not ask much from his father. His dad asked me to continue helping him getting his green card because he does not want to be sent back to Vietnam. Out of fear that he would be sent back and my son would not have his father here in the states or him not being able to help with child support, I agreed. I am in a very healthy relationship right now with a man who loves my son and I for about six months now.  Now that I live in another state and in a relationship, I'm worried. He called to tell me that he got a letter asking for an interview next month. It's been almost two years since I left and this is the first letter. He asked me to fly in for this interview. Let me also add his family here in the states are the ones handling all the paper work and they are the ones going back and forth with the lawyer.. I pretty much have been doing what I was told since this whole process begin and I have no knowledge of what goes on.  All I know is I have to attend this interview and I am nervous. He was arrested and I moved out of state and am in a new relationship. I honestly want out, but I do not know where to start. I no longer care about getting his green card and don't really want any ties to him anymore besides our son. I want to get a divorce and move on with my life. Should I go to this interview and tell them our relationship didn't work out? And I don't want to do this anymore? And is there any chances I can get in trouble?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_immigration:66", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_immigration", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 66}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that the Receiving Party may share some Confidential Information with some third-parties (including consultants, agents and professional advisors).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n6. Recipient agrees not to reproduce or copy by any means Confidential Information, except as reasonably required to accomplish such Recipient's Permitted Purpose.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties:148", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_sharing_with_third-parties", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 148, "document_name": "768384_0000912057-00-018619_document_8.txt"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nNotwithstanding anything in this Section 7.3 to the contrary, any Disposition described in this Section 7.3 shall be permitted if such Disposition is to the Company or any Subsidiary Guarantor.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "jcrew_blocker:50", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "jcrew_blocker", "task_family": "jcrew", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 50}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.3(a)(2).\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAcme Homegoods is a telemarketer subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Before completing a sale, Acme Homegoods told a customer that by purchasing a vase, the customer would automatically be entered to win a vacation to London. Acme Homegoods did not tell the customer that the prize did not include transportation to London.  Is this a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "telemarketing_sales_rule:19", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "telemarketing_sales_rule", "task_family": "telemarketing", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 19}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause specify which state/country's law governs the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThis Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the substantive internal laws of the State of New York.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_governing_law:252", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_governing_law", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 252, "document_name": "MSCIINC_02_28_2008-EX-10.10-.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how and why a service provider collects user information?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nUse your information to provide services you've requested or provide you with offers, promotions (e.g., a sweepstakes, fantasy game, subscription to goods or services, etc.) or content or add you to our postal mail list;\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_first_party_collection_use:1793", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_first_party_collection_use", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1793}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with paying your rent or mortgage, landlord-tenant issues, housing subsidies and public housing, eviction, and other problems with your apartment, mobile home, or house?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe lease specifically states, \"equipment such as additional access points, routers, or signal boosters will negatively affect wireless performance and are strictly prohibited\"   I did not think this sounded right, so I looked it up and according to the [FCC] (https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule) property owners cannot enforce a ban on routers?  Am I missing something here?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_housing:937", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_housing", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 937}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Label \"Yes\" if the paragraph interprets a statue using the plain or ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. The paragraph must reference that it is using plain meaning, or discuss the logic behind using plain meaning. Otherwise label \"No\".\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n. as the supreme court and this court have often stated, when addressing cases involving statutory construction, the starting point must be the language employed by congress. reiter v. sonotone corp., 442 u.s. 330, 337, 99 s.ct. 2326, 2330, 60 l.ed.2d 931 (1979); american tobacco co. v. patterson, - u.s. ------, 102 s.ct. 1534, 1537, 71 l.ed.2d 748 (1982); mountain brook orchards, inc. v. marshall, 640 f.2d 454, 456 (3rd cir. 1981). see bread political action committee v. fec, - u.s.--, 102 s.ct. 1235, 1237, 71 l.ed.2d 432 (1982); dawson chemical co. v. rohm & haas co., 448 u.s. 176, 187, 100 s.ct. 2601, 2608, 65 l.ed.2d 696 (1980); schramm v. department of health & human services, 682 f.2d 85, at 87 (3d cir. 1982). by doing so, we presume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. richards v. united states, 369 u.s. 1, 9, 82 s.ct. 585, 590, 7 l.ed.2d 492 (1962). consequently, [a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. american tobacco co. v. patterson, - u.s. , 102 s.ct. 1534, 1537, 71 l.ed.2d 748 (1982) (quoting consumer product safety commission v. gte sylvania, inc., 447 u.s. 102, 108, 100 s.ct. 2051, 2056, 64 l.ed.2d 766 (1980).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "textualism_tool_plain:20", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "textualism_tool_plain", "task_family": "textualism", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 20}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Do the following opinion excerpts rely on statistical evidence? Answer Yes or No.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nDr. Vekker analyzes only correlation and is up front about that goal: \"Dr. Bloom's analysis fundamentally ignores the relevant question that I am answering . . . the question in this case whether there are gender disparities in compensation and selections for promotions in Tax and Advisory functions at KPMG.\" Dr. Vekker's regressions convincingly answer this threshold question of correlation in the affirmative, which is an important starting point. Defendant is correct that, for the reasons discussed below, Dr. Vekker's report, coupled with the remainder of Plaintiffs' evidence, does not convincingly show that causation can be determined on a classwide basis -- but this does not mean that Dr. Vekker's testimony is unhelpful. Dr. Vekker's testimony need only logically advance Plaintiffs' case. It does so by showing that disparities exist and affect all members of the Proposed Class. The motion is denied.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "legal_reasoning_causality:29", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "legal_reasoning_causality", "task_family": "legal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 29}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Lotus\" for software.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "arbitrary", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:59", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 59}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Do the following opinion excerpts rely on statistical evidence? Answer Yes or No.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nGiven the massive sample size, and the apparent quality of its statistical analysis, taking into account relevant variables, Integra's allegations establish a plausible claim. And given Integra's transparency regarding the formula which it used to analyze all 13 million samples, it has put Mariner on notice of the \"particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged.\" Bly-Magee, 236 F.3d at 1019. Integra's statistical models, combined with the particular details it has provided regarding the \"who, what, when, where, and how\" of the fraudulent scheme, are sufficient to state a claim under the FCA.3 Ebeid, 616 F.3d at 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted).\n\n [*949]  Moreover, even if an FCA claim requires specific [**18]  evidence of unlawful conduct in addition to statistical evidence, see Providence, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 9393 at *11 n.5, Integra has included such allegations here. Integra has provided specific details concerning the fraudulent scheme, including the \"who\" (Mariner management and Mariner employees at the 22 Defendant SNFs); the \"what\" (billing for medically unnecessary services, or services that were not provided at all); the \"when\" (claims for patients admitted on or after January 1, 2011, and prior to October 1, 2016); the \"where\" (at each of the 22 Defendant SNFs); and the \"how\" (charging a higher rate of UHR therapy to fraudulently maximize Medicare reimbursement).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "legal_reasoning_causality:12", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "legal_reasoning_causality", "task_family": "legal", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 12}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the above statement disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains? The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOn January 1, 2012, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (SB 657), codified at California Civil Code Section 1714.43, takes effect in the State of California.\u00a0 The law was designed to increase the amount of information made available by manufacturers and retailers regarding their efforts (if any) to address the issues of slavery and human trafficking in their direct supply chains. \n\n\nAs an independent petroleum refiner and marketer, Valero\u2019s main supply chain involves acquiring crude petroleum oil and other petroleum feedstocks for processing into finished petroleum products (as well as acquiring materials like catalyst necessary for the operations of its refineries).\u00a0 Valero believes this type of supply chain is not inherently susceptible to violations of slavery and human trafficking laws.\u00a0 Thus, while Valero has not undertaken action with the intent of specifically addressing California Civil Code Sections 1714.43(c)(1) \u2013 (c)(5), Valero recognizes and respects all labor and employment laws, including those addressing slavery and human trafficking, wherever Valero operates.\u00a0 \n\n\nObeying all applicable laws, in letter and in spirit, is the foundation on which Valero\u2019s business ethics standards are built.\u00a0 Valero\u2019s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics requires all Valero employees to obey all local, regional and federal laws of the locations where Valero operates, including laws regarding slavery and human trafficking.\u00a0 Valero trains employees on its Code so that each employee understands the substance of the Code and how to abide by its contents.\u00a0 Further,\u00a0 Valero takes seriously all potential legal or Code of Business Conduct and Ethics violations, and encourages all persons subject to its Code to preserve Valero\u2019s highest standards for business ethics and integrity by reporting suspected violations to their supervisors, human resources representatives, or through Valero\u2019s 24/7 business abuse hotline.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits:378", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "supply_chain_disclosure_disclosed_audits", "task_family": "supply_chain_disclosure", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 378}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: The UCC (through Article 2) governs the sale of goods, which are defined as moveable tangible things (cars, apples, books, etc.), whereas the common law governs contracts for real estate and services. For the following contracts, determine if they are governed by the UCC or by common law.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Common Law, UCC.\n\nSohpie buys a homeowner's insurance policy from Axel's company. Is this contract governed by the UCC or the common law?\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Common Law", "metadata": {"id": "ucc_v_common_law:78", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "ucc_v_common_law", "task_family": "ucc", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Common Law", "UCC"], "choices": {"Common Law": "Common Law", "UCC": "UCC"}, "extra": {"index": 78}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information may be shared with or collected by third parties?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nreddit gold If you choose to upgrade to reddit gold, this status will be stored on your profile, along with the transaction number associated with the payment and the recipient of any gold you send. Although Stripe and PayPal send us a receipt with your name and email address if you provide it, we don't add that information to your account. However, reddit does not handle or have access to any of your payment information. For questions about how this information is stored and used, please read our third party partners privacy policies.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection:386", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_third_party_sharing_collection", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 386}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nOlivia is from Washington. Liam is from Washington. Olivia sues Liam for trademark infringement for $60,000.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "diversity_1:44", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "diversity_1", "task_family": "diversity", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 44, "parties_are_diverse": false, "aic_is_met": false}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how and why a service provider collects user information?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nWe work with business partners to provide you access to their products and services. For example, our Website includes a link to www.alienware.com. Any information you supply upon entering the www.alienware.com site is collected by Alienware.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_first_party_collection_use:738", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_first_party_collection_use", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 738}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A private right of action is when a regular person, a private citizen, is legally entitled to enforce their rights under a given statute. Does the clause specify a private right of action?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nA produce wholesaler who violates any provision of this subsection shall be liable to any person injured thereby for the amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation and such liability may be enforced by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "proa:12", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "proa", "task_family": "proa", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 12}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause require consent or notice of a party if the contract is assigned to a third party?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nYou may not grant any such right to a Unit Franchisee, and Unit Franchisees shall not have the right to sub-franchise or sell Unit Franchises.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_anti-assignment:65", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_anti-assignment", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 65, "document_name": "SoupmanInc_20150814_8-K_EX-10.1_9230148_EX-10.1_Franchise Agreement1.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause give a party the right to audit the books, records, or physical locations of the counterparty to ensure compliance with the contract?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nSubject to the terms and -------------------------------- conditions of this Agreement, NTL, to the extent of its legal right to do so, hereby grants to Entrust under the Nortel Patents, a non-transferable, non- assignable, indivisible, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for Licensed Products and Licensed Services.<omitted>\"Nortel Patents\" shall mean all Patents other than Patents included in NTL -------------- Technology: (i) which are owned or controlled at any time during the Patent License Term by Nortel or any Nortel Subsidiary; or (ii) with respect to which, and to the extent to which, Nortel or any Nortel Subsidiary shall at any time during the Patent License Term have the right to grant the licenses and rights which are herein granted by Nortel including through cross licenses or otherwise.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_audit_rights:1002", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_audit_rights", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1002, "document_name": "ENTRUSTINC_07_24_1998-EX-10.5-STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT.PDF"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nAmelia is from Arkansas. Olivia is from New Hampshire. Amelia sues Olivia for trademark infringement for $7,403,000.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "diversity_1:79", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "diversity_1", "task_family": "diversity", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 79, "parties_are_diverse": true, "aic_is_met": true}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the sentence contain language overruling a previous case?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nto hold otherwise would be to permit counsel to frivolously expose their adversaries to unnecessary litigation costs.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "overruling:1304", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "overruling", "task_family": "overruling", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1304}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the sentence defines a term.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nThe common meaning of the term \u201ccurriculum\u201d is \u201cthe whole body of courses offered by an educational institution or one of its branches.\u201d Webster's Third New International Dictionary 557 (1976); see also Black's Law Dictionary 345 (5th ed. 1979) (\u201cThe set of studies or courses for a particular period, designated by a school or branch of a school\u201d). Cf. Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S., at 271, 108 S.Ct., at 570 (high school newspaper produced as part of the school's journalism class was part of the curriculum).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "definition_classification:81", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "definition_classification", "task_family": "definition", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 81}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with accessing health services, paying for medical care, getting public benefits for health care, protecting one's rights in medical settings, and other issues related to health?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nHi all,  I'll try to keep this simple. My health plan(New York Medicaid) covers 20 visits of Physical therapy a year. I might or might not have gone over 20 visits when I started going to my current Physical Therapy Office. I went to PT for 3 visits and got billed $50 for each of the visits. Now in this point of my life, $150 is a boatload of money and can't afford to pay it off. Apparently my plan can't help me out as I went over the 20 plan limit and the PT office didn't confirm whether I was at my limit or not as well.  So I'm basically stuck with this bill and it will possibly be sent to collections. Now I have a \"plan\" perhaps on getting this resolved which may be a bit un-kosher. You see this same office billed my insurance company (NY Medicaid), for an EMG of the Neck and Lower Back and they were paid $3.5k for each part.  However when I asked the office for the report they tell me they only did and have a report for the EMG of the Neck not the lower back even though they billed my insurance for it and got paid $3.5k.  So I want to try to ask them to waive my physical therapy balance of $150, so that I look the other way and don't report them for billing fraud to my medicaid health plan. I'm not sure this will work but I am all out of options, and would like any and all advice.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_health:100", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_health", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 100}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues that arise within a family, like divorce, adoption, name change, guardianship, domestic violence, child custody, and other issues?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nI've just received a copy of the trust documents and do plan to speak to an attorney on my behalf, but my grandma's husband's attorney also sent a w-9 form to be mailed to my grandparents home. His lawyer stated there is nothing to be distributed at this time (I'm assuming because they each has a sub-trust and if one of them dies the other can do what they want) and their grandchildren will each get half after their house is sold. The trust states that the surviving spouse gets to live in the house until their death if they so choose. So I'm not expecting to see any sort of money from that for a seriously long time. I've never had do taxes or fill out any IRS forms on my behalf and just want to know what the point of me sending this form to him would be. My dad used every penny that was left to my brother and I years ago when we were minors so I'm just really skeptical about everything going on right now.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_family:1264", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_family", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 1264}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause describe how user information is protected?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nLinks to Other Sites This Site provides links to websites maintained by other organizations. Miami New Times provides these links as a convenience to users, but it does not operate, control or endorse such sites. Miami New Times also disclaims any responsibility for the information on those sites and any products or services offered on such sites. Please review the privacy policies of these sites. Miami New Times is not responsible for any actions or policies of such third parties, and does not make any warranties or representations that any linked sites (or even this Site) will function without error or interruption, that defects will be corrected, or that the sites and their servers are free of viruses and other problems that can harm your computer. Miami New Times disclaims any responsibility for transactions conducted on those sites and cannot vouch for the security of the information submitted in those transactions.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Yes", "metadata": {"id": "opp115_data_security:206", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "opp115_data_security", "task_family": "opp115", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 206}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Classify the following text using the following definitions.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Analysis, Conclusion, Decree, Facts, Issue, Procedural History, Rule.\n\nCitation:\n1 F.4th 411\n\nParagraph:\nIn sum, the district court erred in concluding the documents at issue were not \u201cintra-agency\u201d under Exemption 5. We therefore REVERSE the court's judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Decree", "metadata": {"id": "function_of_decision_section:357", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "function_of_decision_section", "task_family": "function", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Analysis", "Conclusion", "Decree", "Facts", "Issue", "Procedural History", "Rule"], "choices": {"Analysis": "Analysis", "Conclusion": "Conclusion", "Decree": "Decree", "Facts": "Facts", "Issue": "Issue", "Procedural History": "Procedural History", "Rule": "Rule"}, "extra": {"index": 357}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): arbitrary, descriptive, fanciful, generic, suggestive.\n\nThe mark \"Soft\" for pillows.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "descriptive", "metadata": {"id": "abercrombie:26", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "abercrombie", "task_family": "abercrombie", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["arbitrary", "descriptive", "fanciful", "generic", "suggestive"], "choices": {"arbitrary": "arbitrary", "descriptive": "descriptive", "fanciful": "fanciful", "generic": "generic", "suggestive": "suggestive"}, "extra": {"index": 26}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the post discuss issues with accessing health services, paying for medical care, getting public benefits for health care, protecting one's rights in medical settings, and other issues related to health?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nLong story short, we held off on filing the eviction notice and was kind enough to give him until Sept 1st to move out, or else be evicted by the Sheriffs.   Well now his dad decided to type out a letter (HIS agreements, nothing from a law office), along with a $1,000 that \"if deposited then you agree to these terms.\" Now we are moving forward with the eviction notice.   Question 1: I'm not depositing the check and I want to send it back to the address listed on the check. Do I need to cross out whatever is written on the check and write \"void\" in its place?   Question 2: Would I need to have the Sheriff put the eviction notice on his bedroom door? Roommate comes in through the garage and won't notice anything on the front door.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "learned_hands_health:186", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "learned_hands_health", "task_family": "learned_hands", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 186}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Does the clause restrict the ability of a party to compete with the counterparty or operate in a certain geography or business or technology sector?\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\nLicensee agrees and covenants that it shall not challenge, contest, or take any actions inconsistent with Licensor's exclusive rights of ownership of the Licensed Mark.\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "cuad_non-compete:261", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "cuad_non-compete", "task_family": "cuad", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 261, "document_name": "ArconicRolledProductsCorp_20191217_10-12B_EX-2.7_11923804_EX-2.7_Trademark License Agreement.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Identify if the clause provides that all Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): No, Yes.\n\n\"Confidential Information\" of a disclosing party (\"Discloser\") means the following, regardless of its form and including copies made by the receiving party (\"Recipient\"), whether the Recipient becomes aware of it before or after the date of this Agreement: \uf0b7 all information treated by the Discloser as confidential; and \uf0b7 disclosed by the Discloser to the Recipient or of which the Recipient becomes aware, including but not limited to, the information specified in Schedule 1;\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "No", "metadata": {"id": "contract_nli_explicit_identification:30", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "contract_nli_explicit_identification", "task_family": "contract_nli", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["No", "Yes"], "choices": {"No": "No", "Yes": "Yes"}, "extra": {"index": 30, "document_name": "ICTSC-NDA-General-MandA-signed.pdf"}}}
{"input": "You are answering a LegalBench legal-reasoning benchmark item.\nTask: Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute.\nReturn exactly one of these labels (and nothing else): Contradiction, Entailment.\n\nstatute:\n(ii) $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900 if the taxable income is over $36,900 but not over $89,150;\n\ndescription:\nAlice is a surviving spouse for the year 2017. Alice's taxable income for the year 2017 is $70117.\n\nquestion:\nAlice has to pay $14836 in taxes for the year 2017 under section 1(a)(ii).\n\nAnswer:", "expected": "Entailment", "metadata": {"id": "sara_entailment:55", "source": "nguha/legalbench", "split": "test", "benchmark": "closed", "task": "sara_entailment", "task_family": "sara", "grader": "exact_choice", "labels": ["Contradiction", "Entailment"], "choices": {"Contradiction": "Contradiction", "Entailment": "Entailment"}, "extra": {"index": 55, "case id": "s1_a_2_ii_pos", "text": "    (ii) $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900 if the taxable income is over $36,900 but not over $89,150; <br> Alice is a surviving spouse for the year 2017. Alice's taxable income for the year 2017 is $70117. <br> Alice has to pay $14836 in taxes for the year 2017 under section 1(a)(ii)."}}}