Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. 125 firm o f his share in it operated as a dissolution o f the partnership; but in the editions published since the A ct the editor® indicate that it is- their opinion that •the A ct has m ade a difference in this respect, because the A ct m entioned certain specific cases in w hich a partnership is to be considered to be dissolved, and the assignment o f partnership shares is not included am ongst them . I was referred to a case o f Xxxxxxxx x . Xxxx on, in which it was suggested that the point had b een decided by B idley and Xxxxxxx X.X. in the Divisional Court, but w hen that case is exam ined it w ill be found that the point was not decided, the decision o f the Court having proceeded on the special terms of the particular agreem ent betw een the parties. There seem s to be no real authority on the question where there are m ore than tw o partners,, though where there are only tw o partners there is authority: H ea th y . S a n som ,1 which shows that an assignment b y one partner of his share- to the other does put an end to the partnership, as indeed m ust obviously be the case. W here there are m ore than tw o partners and there is an assignment from one to another so that no new p artn er is introduced, the question is so doubtful that I do not like to express- an opinion on it. The Partnership A ct, 1890, leaves the m atter in doubt, because the A ct provides by section 46 that the rules o f equity and com m on law applicable to partnership shall continue in force- except in so far as they ai;e inconsistent with the express provisions of t-he A ct, and it is very arguable whether the addition o f other causes- of dissolution is inconsistent with a section w hich expresses certain-, causes. ” That the question at issue is shrouded in doubt appears "from the follow ing' passage from V olum e 24 of H xxxxxxx’ s Law s o f England, page 462,. paragraph 883 : — “ An assignment of his interest b y one partner to another, where- there are only two partners, operates as a dissolution, but where there are m ore than tw o the point is d ou b tfu l.” In this state of uncertainty it is relevant to consider the opinions o f standard works on the L a w o f Partnership. In the 10th edition o f Xxxxxxx on the L a w o f Partnership, I find the follow ing passage on page 6 8 0 :— The Partnership A ct, 1890, does not m ention the assignm ent of a. share amongst the causes of dissolution; it is therefore conceived' that the assignment o f a share in no case operates ...
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. Xxxxxxxx shall each have delivered to Acquiror a non-competition agreement, precluding each of them from competing with business of Acquiror and its Subsidiaries for a period of three years from the later of the Closing Date or the date of payout under their respective existing employment agreements and containing such other terms and conditions as are reasonably satisfactory to Acquiror;
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. X. Xxxxxx are the sole trustees and lifetime beneficiaries of the Trust.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. Executive also specifically acknowledges that his service as a director beyond the expiration of his current term in 2004 is subject to Executive's re-nomination as a director candidate by the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Company's Board of Directors and the election by shareholders, neither of which events are guaranteed by this Separation Agreement.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the rights of the Participant upon a Change of Control (as defined in the Plan) shall be as set forth in section 9 of the Plan on the date hereof., in lieu of the vesting schedule set forth in Schedule 1. If as a result of the Change of Control, the Common Stock is exchanged for or converted into a different form of equity security and/or the right to receive other property (including cash), the Option may be exercised, to the maximum extent practicable, in the same form.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx own beneficially and of record the shares of True Fiction free and clear of any liens and encumbrances.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx knew that they would receive millions of dollars in illegal kickback payments from Privinvest in connection with the EMATUM loan while employed by Credit Suisse; (2) Firm 1 had expressly warned Credit Suisse about Privinvest and Privinvest Co-Conspirator 1’s history of “corruption and bribery”; and (3) a senior Credit Suisse executive had previously said “no” to Pearse to the combination of Privinvest Co-Conspirator 1 and Mozambique in November 2012.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. X AFFILIATES ARE NOT LIABLE IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE, FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF THE CLIENT DATA OR DELIVERABLES, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, CONSEQUENTIAL, COLLATERAL, OR INCIDENTAL, FOR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF OR CORRUPTION OF DATA OR INFORMATION, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF OR INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS OR LOSS OF ANTICIPATED SAVINGS. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY DOES NOT LIMIT XXXXX’X AND XXXXX’X AFFILIATES LIABILITY FOR ANY CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEATH, BODILY INJURY, OR TANGIBLE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. 5.2. Section 5 survives termination or expiration of the Agreement.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx. Let P be a static group key agreement protocol for n parties allowing broadcasts.
Xxxxxx and Xxxxx a ‘milestone in blasphemy prosecution’ in England,480 Justice Xxxxxxxxx ‘overturned the straightjacketed statute that had been created by Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx in the 1670s’481 and decided that ‘even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked’ as long as ‘the decencies of controversy’ are observed.482 Xxxxxxxxx distinguished between the matter and manner of an utterance.483 As long as one is decent, timid, or inoffensive in style, one may question, or criticize religion. By doing so, the focus of the law’s protection shifted from Christianity as such, to the protection of Christian believers.484 477 Quoted in: X. Xxxxxxxx, ‘The Invention of Criminal Blasphemy: Xxx x. Xxxxxx (1676),’ Representations, 2008, p. 31. 478 X. Xxxx, ‘The English Law of Blasphemy: The “Melancholy, Xxxx, Withdrawing Roar”’, in: X. Xxxxxxx & X. Xxxxxxxxxx (eds.), The Fall and Rise of Blasphemy Law, Leiden: Leiden University Press 2016, p. 58-60.
