Assumptions and Limitations. With KML’s acknowledgement and agreement as provided for in the Engagement Agreement, TD Securities has relied upon the accuracy, completeness, and fair presentation of all data and other information obtained by it from public sources or provided to it by KML or its representatives, or otherwise obtained by TD Securities. The Fairness Opinion is premised and conditional upon such accuracy, completeness and fair presentation and there being no misrepresentation (as defined in the Securities Act) of the foregoing data and other information. TD Securities has assumed that there is no information relating to the business, operations and assets of the Acquired Entities or KML, or their respective affiliates, that could reasonably be expected to be material to the Fairness Opinion that has not been disclosed or made available to TD Securities. Subject to the exercise of professional judgment, and except as expressly described herein, TD Securities has not attempted to verify independently the accuracy, completeness or fair presentation of any of the foregoing data and other information. With respect to the budgets, forecasts, projections or estimates provided to TD Securities and used in its analyses, TD Securities notes that projecting future results is inherently subject to uncertainty. TD Securities has assumed, however, that such budgets, forecasts, projections and estimates were prepared using the assumptions identified therein which TD Securities has been advised are (or were at the time of preparation and continue to be), in the opinion of KML, reasonable in the circumstances. TD Securities expresses no independent view as to the reasonableness of such budgets, forecasts, projections and estimates or the assumptions on which they are based. TD Securities was not engaged to review and has not reviewed any of the legal, tax or accounting aspects of the Transaction. TD Securities has assumed that the Transaction complies with all applicable laws. Senior officers of KML, on behalf of KML, have represented to TD Securities in the Certificate, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief after due inquiry: (i) that KML has no information or knowledge of any facts public or otherwise not specifically provided to TD Securities relating to the Acquired Entities which would reasonably be expected to affect materially the Fairness Opinion; (ii) with the exception of forecasts, projections or estimates referred to in subparagraph (iv) below, the information...
Assumptions and Limitations. 4.1. Entrust personnel shall not be available or on stand-by for non-Entrust tasks
Assumptions and Limitations. In order for a twin study to be valid, some key assumptions must be met. The most important and perhaps contentious being that to the extent that twins have a shared familial environment, MZ and DZ twins, on average, share their environments to the same degree. This is known as the equal environments assumption (EEA). This can be interpreted as both MZ and DZ twins are exposed to the same (often unknown) environmental factors that may contribute to the phenotypic variance. If MZ interact with their environment in a way that is more similar to the environmental interaction that DZ twins experience, then any estimate of the genetic effect on the phenotype being studied is likely to be inflated. Conversely, where the opposite is true, i.e. DZ twins systematically experience more similar environmental influences than MZ twins with respect to a specific phenotype, the genetic contribution will be underestimated. Violation of the EEA can occur at pre- and post-term – in utero monochorionic, monoamniotic MZ twins share the same placenta and amniotic sac. One argument is that the co-localisation of both MZ foetuses confers a more similar intrauterine environment than the majority of DZ twins, which do not share a placenta. Conversely, competition between monochorionic, monoamniotic MZ foetuses for resources may drive intrauterine differences such as those experienced in twin–twin transfusion syndrome (Xxxx et al., 2009). Differences in environmental interaction between MZ and DZ twin pairs may continue from childhood into adulthood, where perceived zygosity may influence behaviour and preferences. MZ and DZ twins may have identical or opposite, for example, dietary habits and physical activity levels as they or their parents (unconsciously) augment or lessen, similarity between them. Another assumption of the classical twin study is that the total observed phenotypic variance must be the same for MZ and DZ twins. Equal variances for MZ and DZ twins indicates the two groups represent a single homogenous group. Twins are assumed to be representative of the population from which they are sampled from, so that inferences made about the relative contributions to the phenotype can be generalised. In practical terms, this means for continuous phenotypes, such as height or weight, twins and randomly selected individuals from the population should have the same means and variances if the sample size collected is sufficiently large. Similarly, to make claims about a genetic...
Assumptions and Limitations. We have assumed: (i) the genuineness of all signatures; (ii) the legal capacity of all individuals; (iii) the genuineness and authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals; and (iv) the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us as certified, photocopied or facsimiled copies. The opinions expressed below are given as of the date of this letter and are not prospective. We disclaim any obligation to advise the addressees or any other person of any change in law or any fact which may come or be brought to our attention after the date of this letter. We have assumed that the covenants, acknowledgements, certifications, representations and warranties of each Subscriber set forth in its respective Subscription Agreement are true and correct and have been performed as the case may be, as of the date hereof. We have assumed that:
Assumptions and Limitations. The CaaS Offering is subject to the following assumptions and limitations:
Assumptions and Limitations. The Project Price is based on certain assumptions by NEC. Any deviation from the following assumptions may result in an adjustment in the Project Price in accordance with the Change Management Procedures set forth in Section 8 below.
Assumptions and Limitations. This proposal has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client for specific application to the geotechnical investigation for the proposed Calabasas City Hall and Library in Calabasas, California. BYA will endeavor to conduct the services described herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. BYA makes no other representation or warranty, express or implied. The proposed scope and corresponding fees represent BYA’s view of the optimal and most cost-effective scope of work based upon the anticipated conditions and available information regarding the site. Unforeseen circumstances, such as the discovery of subsurface conditions that significantly complicate the investigation, may occur. Our fee proposal includes the following assumptions and limitations: ▪ BYA’s fee estimate is inclusive of the scope items and schedule described above. Additional services, or schedule adjustments that may be requested or required due to changes in the proposed project or other conditions, are excluded. ▪ Time for project meetings away from our office is excluded from this proposal. If meetings are requested, BYA will attend on a time-and-materials basis. ▪ The Client shall provide site access. The Client shall remove physical obstacles to the drilling, as necessary. Such obstacle may include fences, landscaping, foliage, irrigation systems, etc. We assume cooperative access will be made available immediately upon receipt of the notice to proceed. ▪ Exploratory excavations may settle over time, possibly creating a hazardous condition. It is the Client’s responsibility to monitor and correct any hazards related to settlement of exploratory excavations. ▪ Subsurface exploration may entail disruption or damage to site landscaping, including irrigation systems. BYA will endeavor to minimize such damage; however, repair of damaged landscaping or unmarked irrigation systems is the responsibility of the Client. ▪ Additional costs resulting from delays in fieldwork due to weather or other factors beyond BYA’s control are not included. ▪ BYA will contact Underground Service Alert for the marking of utilities per the State mandatory protocol. Regardless, we request that you or an appointed representative meet us on site to locate any underground structures prior to digging. By authorizing the above scope of work, the client agrees to ho...
Assumptions and Limitations. The purpose of the tests defined in this document are specifically to look at the scalability of federation technologies. Specifically and currently this document does not address the scalability of any metadata or of any PUID service. The latter of these may be added as a result of the demonstrator being developed as part of WP5 but is not required for initial evaluation. Also, the impact of any federated AAI technology is not currently considered. Once options are available from the AAI Task Force, additional tests can be added to assess the impact of the recommendations and technology. In addition, it is proposed to not test HSM properties currently. While these may affect the usefulness of the storage in terms of how quickly data can be accessed. WLCG have already demonstrated that random accesses to the tape system lead to very poor performance and large experiments 'pre-stage' data from tape onto disk before starting bulk transfers or analysis. Again, at some point, it may be of interest to assess how HSMs are affected by this random usage of a tape backed system, since this will govern the timeliness of data retrieval, but the effects of this will likely obscure the scalability limitations of any federation technology under test. In terms of file sizes, it is quite difficult to come up with a test file size which would match every community. In some communities, average file sizes could be of the order of a few kilobytes, while others could be several GB. In order to reduce the testing overhead, it is assumed that a reasonable average file size is 100 MB and this will be used during testing. It is appreciated that in some cases the storage provided will be shared between WP7 and other EUDAT WP's (or even other projects). In this case it may be necessary to schedule the running of these tests to avoid conflicts (for instance WP5 and WP6 have a tighter timescale to deliver than WP7), and if they require some storage space to be reserved permanently, this will need to be accommodated by the site and reflected in the site availability matrix .
Assumptions and Limitations. Certain assumptions have been made herein, including the following: • Subcontracted effort to complete studies pertinent to the CEQA analyses is anticipated to be completed by the Project Proponent, including quantification of air quality impacts related to BAAQMD permit applications, and the scope of work to be determined for required upgrades to the marine terminal and onshore facilities. It is assumed that the results of these efforts will be provided as inputs for the CEQA analyses. The need WesPac Energy-Pittsburg Terminal Project April 29, 2011 for subcontracted effort for the evaluation of marine transportation impacts will also be determined during the CEQA analyses. • The environmental areas listed above for in-depth analysis in the EIR are based on an assumed scoping during the IS process. The actual areas to be evaluated evaluations. in the EIR (post-IS) will be determined during the CEQA • Review times assumed in the Project Schedule (Table 1) are suggested. Actual review times and the overall project schedule will be determined by the City; significant changes to the Project Schedule may also affect costs.
Assumptions and Limitations. GHD has prepared this proposed scope of work and estimated costs based on the review of most of the project documents provided by the City, and based on the following limitations and assumptions: • According to the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP), GHD is limiting the geographic area addressed by this scope of services to the areas identified as Area A and Area B on the northern part of the former Farmland site. • The City and State agency will provide timely review, commentary and approvals of requests for input on all agency submittals or changes in scope, as needed. • GHD assumes no additional field data will be necessary and is not proposing to perform any field sampling or testing under this scope of work. The City will continue to perform all routine sampling, operation and maintenance associated with ongoing compliance activities. • GHD assumes that we will have unrestricted access to the Site to make any and all Site visits to observe and inspect all portions of the property and remediation activities as such visits relate to the scope of services. • All topographic survey information is assumed complete and accurate and no additional topographic survey data or fieldwork will be necessary. • Bench and field scale pilot testing are not proposed under this scope of work. • GHD assumes the City will prepare all reports required under the Order and provide GHD a timely opportunity to review and comment on each report prior to submittal. • Uncontrollable risk includes operation of new rural water supply well field immediately down gradient from the Site. • All draft and final deliverables will be submitted in electronic PDF format.
