Colo Clause Samples
The "COLO" clause, short for colocation, establishes the terms under which one party is permitted to place its equipment within another party's data center or facility. Typically, this clause outlines the specific space allocated, access rights, power and cooling provisions, and any associated fees or responsibilities for maintenance and security. Its core practical function is to clearly define the rights and obligations of both parties regarding the shared use of physical infrastructure, thereby minimizing disputes and ensuring reliable service delivery.
Colo. COLO will have the right to immediately terminate Customer's License if COLO loses rights to the Premises. COLO will offer any other available space to Customer on a right of refusal based on date of initial contract with COLO. Customer will have 48 hours to accept or decline such offer.
Colo. Com has not▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇e Compa▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ it owes Colo.C▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇al amount of $1,597,816.23 under the Co▇▇.▇▇▇ ▇greement, representing amounts past due and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇aining contract value of the canceled Colo.Com Agreement.
Colo. Div. of Wildlife, 100 P.3d 508, 518-19 (Colo. App. 2004) (regarding permanent injunctions). Additionally, we cannot conclude that the water court abused its discretion by not allowing certain evidence that Englewood alleges establishes its injury. Englewood sought to introduce at trial a document prepared by Denver anticipating a net gain of 3,000 acre feet for its In-between rights as a result of the Agreement. However, after Englewood admitted that such evidence was offered to show that Denver and the Companies were operating in violation of the one-fill rule and the water court confirmed that Denver and the Companies would stipulate that they would not operate in such a manner, the water court found such evidence unnecessary and decided not to admit it. Englewood later sought to introduce evidence that it claimed established that Denver diverted on average 7,400 acre feet of water on its In-between rights during the fill period for the 1885 Oasis storage right whereas those rights would have been out of priority prior to the Agreement because of the call on the 1885 Oasis storage right. The water court refused to allow this evidence because Englewood could not show that there was a 1909 call on the river at the time such that the diversions met the Agreement’s definition of In-between rights. Given the record, neither of these challenged evidentiary rulings are “manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair,” and we do not find that the water court abused its discretion in making them. See ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. City of Brighton, 228 P.3d 957, 962 (Colo. 2010); Water Rights of Masters Inv. Co, 702 P.2d at 273-74. The water court also did not err in its determination that Englewood’s evidence of injury was “unconvincing for several reasons.” Englewood alleges that the water court ignored the evidence presented at trial that Englewood claims established that, as a result of the Agreement, the absence of a call on the 1885 Oasis storage right allows Denver to divert on its In- between direct flow and storage rights with the result of reduced flows to downstream reservoirs on the South Platte River. However, we cannot conclude that the water court’s factual finding of no injury based on the evidence was “‘so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record.’” City of Black Hawk, 97 P.3d at 956 (quoting In re ▇▇▇▇▇, 856 P.2d at 801). Instead, the water court explains in five paragraphs why the offer of proof of injury by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is unconvincing, noting several da...
Colo. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ees to, from time to time, designate an appropriate executive to meet with a Nortel designated executive, at a mutually agreeable time and location, to review and discuss the status of COLO.▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ any other related aspects of the business relationship between the parties.
Colo. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ll take reasonable care to use Nortel's Confidential Information only for study, operating, or maintenance purposes in connection with COLO.▇▇▇'▇ ▇se of Products furnished by Nortel pursuant to this Agreement.
Colo. No other statement, promise, or agreement, either written or oral, made by any party or agents of any party that is not contained in this written Settlement Agreement, including its attachments, will be enforceable. Public Document. A copy of this document may be made available to any person upon request. Parameters of Agreement. This Agreement does not purport to remedy any other potential violations of the ADA or any other Federal law not specifically referenced herein. This Agreement does not affect the ACSO’s continuing responsibility to comply with all aspects of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Colo. ▇▇▇ ("▇essee"), as borrower, has entered into a Loan and Security Agreement with MMC/GATX Partnership No. I, Venture Lending & Leasing II, Inc., Transamerica Business Credit Corporation, Silicon Valley Bank and Lighthouse Capital Partners (collectively, "Lenders") and Agent dated as of November __, 1999 (as amended and supplemented from time to time, the "Loan Agreement").
Colo. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇eby represents and warrants to Nortel that the Stock Acquisition Agreements are in substantially the same form as the other Investors (as defined by the Stock Purchase Agreement) acquiring the Series C Preferred Stock issued by COLO.▇▇▇.
Colo. Prac., Family Law & Practice § 39:5. See also § 14-2-304, C.R.S.
Colo. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ developed a business plan to prepare site space and neutral central office locations for telecommunication and data service providers.