THE FACTS Sample Clauses

THE FACTS. From the affidavit evidence before me and the submissions by counsel for all the parties it is quite clear that the plaintiff is the legal owner of Stand No. 36 Kitwe which at the time of commencement of these proceedings on 23rd September 2009 had comprised of residential flats. It is also quite clear that about 2004 the defendant allowed the third parties to occupy the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36 Kitwe on the understanding that the third parties would pay site rent to the defendant which was paid from time to time. It is also a fact that subsequent to these proceedings the defendant rezoned the area including the area where Stand No. 36 is situated from residential to commercial and that the plaintiff obtained building permission to demolish the flats and to construct a shopping complex. It is further a fact that subsequently the plaintiff advised the defendant to remove the third parties from the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36 Kitwe and that the defendant issued to the third parties in September and November 2009 notices to remove their makeshift stalls from the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36

THE FACTS. The facts that have emerged from the unrefuted evidence may be summarized as follows. On or around August 1, 2004, Xxx XxXxxxx, the claimant, was employed to Atlas Protection Limited, the first defendant, as an unarmed security guard. The first defendant was at the time, and still is, engaged in the business of providing security services in Jamaica. The claimant was assigned static duty between 7:00 p.m. on July 31, 2004 and 7:00 a.m. on August 1, 2004 at premises located at 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxx 00. Those premises housed a factory owned and operated by Ringo Company Limited, the second defendant. The second defendant was at the time carrying on the business of food and juice manufacturing. The claimant was the only security guard assigned to perform duties at that location during that period.

THE FACTS. There is no legitimate uncertainty as to whether to use the first-round count or the final-round count in computing the national popular vote. Indeed, it would be preposterous to interpret RCV to mean that a state is going to hand voters a ballot allowing them to rank presidential candidates according to their first, second, etc. preferences—but that the state is then going to ignore every ranking on the ballot except the voter’s first choice. Using only the first-choice count would negate the main purpose of adopting an RCV law, namely to give voters the opportunity to rank candidates. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director of FairVote Minnesota, submitted written testimony to the Minnesota House Election Finance and Policy Committee on February 1, 2023 saying: “I have read the opposing testimony related to RCV and National Popular Vote compatibility, and it is misleading and incorrect. The testimony comes from an organization opposed to both RCV and NPV [that is, Save Our States] and has a clear motive—to hurt both reforms. Like Maine, which uses RCV for presidential elections and has clarified its state laws to ensure compatibility with electing presidential electors under NPV, Minnesota will do the same. I urge you to disregard the unproven, misleading argument that RCV and NPV are incompatible and support the NPV legislation before you.”17 [Emphasis added] In 2021, Maine amended its RCV-for-President law to eliminate any arguable ambiguity by requiring that the state’s Certificate of Ascertainment report the final-round RCV count. Alaska’s current RCV law is not as explicit as Maine’s. This will probably be of no practical importance because the Republican presidential nominee is almost certain to win an absolute majority of the first-choice votes in Alaska. When that happens, Alaska’s RCV law specifies that the counting process stops—thus making the count of first-choice votes equivalent to the final- round RCV count. Having said that, if this question of statutory interpretation is not clear in Alaska by the time when the National Popular Vote Compact comes into effect, RCV supporters in Alaska and other Alaska voters would undoubtedly demand a definitive statutory interpretation before Election Day as to how their RCV votes for President will be counted. If state election officials do not provide a satisfactory answer prior to Election Day, voters would undoubtedly seek a declaratory judgement from Alaska courts. In the extremely unlikely event that thi...

THE FACTS. In May 1994, respondent ABSMCBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABSMCBN) signed an Agreement (Agreement) with the Xxx and Xxx Management and Development Corporation (MJMDC). ABSMCBN was represented by its corporate officers while XXXXX was represented by XXXXX, as President and General Manager, and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (XXXXXXX), as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as AGENT, MJMDC agreed to provide SONZAs services exclusively to ABSMCBN as talent for radio and television. The Agreement listed the services SONZA would render to ABSMCBN, as follows:

THE FACTS. The appellant, which is “a wholly owned company of the Government of Madhya Pradesh” (as described by the appellant in the D Special Leave Petition), is responsible for the bulk purchase of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh for onward sale/supply to the distribution utilities (DISCOMS). The appellant issued a request for proposal (RFP) dated 06.05.2015 for long-term procurement of 300 MW of solar energy through tariff-based competitive bidding. The bid of M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia Holding Limited was accepted. It was declared the E successful bidder for three units of 50 MW each at different tariff rates. The bidder subsequently incorporated the first respondent, viz., M/s Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited as a special purpose company. This was for developing one project of 50 MW. The rate, which is applicable in respect of the first respondent, was Rs.5.109 per F unit. In respect of the other two bids, the bidder incorporated other companies, viz., M/s Sky Power Solar India Private Limited and M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia One Private Limited. The rates applicable in respect of said companies for the other two projects consisting of 50 MW each was Rs.5.298 per unit and Rs.5.051 per unit, respectively. The PPA was entered into on 18.09.2015. The agreement, inter alia, G provided for pre-commissioning activities. They are described as satisfaction of conditions subsequent by the seller. The first respondent is the seller under the PPA.

THE FACTS. The ISA and the Respondents agree that the following facts took place, which constitute the basis for entering this Arrangement: 1.1 KITOV PHARMA LTD. (hereinafter: “the Company” or “Respondent 1”) is a company that, at the relevant time, researched and developed combination drugs that treat two clinical conditions at the same time - pain resulting from degenerative arthritis and high blood pressure. The Company’s flagship drug, KIT 302 (hereinafter: “the drug”), is intended for the treatment of pain and the reduction of blood pressure in arthritis. The Company presently reports as a dual-listed reporting company, according to Chapter 5-C of the Securities Law. However, all the reports described in this Enforcement Agreement were made during a period in which the Company was a public Israeli company subject to the reporting duties set forth in the Israeli Securities Law. 1 In this Arrangement, “proceedings” - as defined in section 54A of the Securities Law.

THE FACTS. The NPV Compact does not give officials in states belonging to the Compact the power to judge the election returns of other states—much less the power to “manipulate” anything. In fact, the Compact says exactly the opposite: “The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate.”7 [Emphasis added] The reader is invited to search the 888 words of the National Popular Vote Compact for anything that even suggests that administrative officials of the Compact’s member states have the discretion or the power of manipulation that Xxxxxxx claims.

THE FACTS. 3.1 On 30 June 2004 the Parties agreed a Frame Contract for the sale of about 20,000 metric tons Romanian Sunflower Seeds, Crop 2004, in Bulk, for delivery in monthly lots of about 5,000 metric tons each, for delivery in September, October, November and December 2004. 3.2 Buyers issued the “Frame Contract” dated 30 June 2004. The following are material clauses of the Contract: “QUANTITY AND DELIVERY PERIOD : ….. Each monthly quantity of abt. 5,000 net metric tons +/- 2% will be reconfirmed by both parties with minimum 30 days before delivery period. DELIVERY PARITY: CPT Silo/Warehouse/Berth from [First named Romanian] port and/or CPT Silo/Warehouse/Berth [Second named Romanian] port at Buyer’s option declarable before starting deliveries. PRICE: Price fixing for each consignment of 5,000 net metric tons +/- 2% to be mutually agreed upon, but not later than 30 days before delivery period. PAYMENT: - 50% by t.t. in favour of Sellers against seller’s proforma invoice, warehouse certificates countersigned by an independent superintendent company, acting on behalf and Xxxxx’s account and Insurance Policies of the goods in warehouse, made by the Seller to a first class Romanian Insurance Company, ceded in favour of Xxxxxx - 40% by t.t. in seller’s favour within 5 working days from presentation of duplicate of railway bills, copies of weight and preliminary quality certificates to the Buyer’s office. - 10% by t.t. in seller’s favour within 5 working days from presentation of original export shipping documents and copy of analysis certificate issued by FOSFA laboratory, at Xxxxx’s office.

THE FACTS. 3.1 On 31 January 2007 Sellers approached Mr X, the Intermediary, looking to sell a quantity of 3,600-3,800 metric tons of Russian Sunflowerseeds on a prompt basis. Mr X was a former employee of Buyers and subsequently in his new business was known to collaborate with Xxxxxx in certain agricultural commodities transactions. In the event, the interest was passed on to Xxxxxx, who recognised Sellers' name as a company they had previously done business with and decided to open negotiations for the parcel. 3.2 The following day (1 February 2007) a Contract for 3,600 metric tons (10% more or less) of Sunflowerseeds was concluded between Buyers and Sellers by telephone with a follow-up exchange of e-mails, and on 2 February 2007 a written confirmation was produced. 3.3 In fulfilment of the Contract, 3,788.331 metric tons of Russian Sunflowerseeds were shipped on board the MV AA in First named Russian port under a Bill of Lading dated 10 February 2007 and destined for named Italian port. 3.4 Sellers invoiced Buyers for 99% of the goods value in Euros on 12 February 2007. 3.5 Buyers paid for the goods in Euros by bank transfer on 14 February 2007. 3.6 The vessel arrived at named Italian port on 20 February 2007 and completed discharge on 21 February 2007. 3.7 Buyers, on the 28 February 2007, sought reimbursement of the price paid in Euros and requested an invoice denominated in US Dollars. 3.8 Surveyors appointed by the parties took joint samples that were despatched to First named Laboratory, who issued an Analysis Report on 3 March 2007. 3.9 Second named Laboratory, issued a second Analysis Report on 23 March 2007. 3.10 A third Analysis Certificate was issued by Third named Laboratory on 19 April 2007. 3.11 Exchanges then took place between the parties over various issues in dispute without resolution. 3.12 On 13 April 2007, Xxxxxx claimed arbitration against Sellers under FOSFA Rules and appointed an Arbitrator. On 4 May 2007, Xxxxxx informed Sellers by e-mail that they were further claiming in arbitration for the non-payment of their debit note of 27 April 2007 in respect of quality allowances for the goods at discharge. 3.13 Sellers, on 16 May 2007, appointed an Arbitrator as the second arbitrator in the reference. 3.14 Buyers were also a party to arbitration with their customer in respect of these goods with the same arbitrators being appointed. Whilst the Arbitrators were of the view a consolidated arbitration was possible the three parties could not agree ...

THE FACTS. The facts of this matter are well detailed in the judgment of Xxxxxx X.X. and I will repeat them here.