Difference Clause Samples

Difference. This is calculated by deducting the ‘Closing Inventory – Calculated’ total from the ‘Closing Inventory – Physical’ total reported on the Packaged Product Movement Summary.

Difference. This is calculated by deducting the ‘Closing Inventory – Calculated’ total from the ‘Closing Inventory – Physical’ total reported on the Packaged Product Movement Summary. The shrinkage allowance takes into account an acceptable volume of Product that may be consumed or written-off in BC due to normal manufacturing and warehousing activities. By allowing this, a manufacturer does not have to fully document each instance of breakage/destruction which may occur. The rate depends on the annual production volume of the manufacturer. The current rate of the LDB shrinkage allowance is 1.75% of ‘Total Calculated Packaged Product Moved in BC’ for the annual production of packaged wine-other products, and 0.50% for packaged cider and refreshment beverage products' annual production. This portion of the Packaged Product Movement Summary calculates the Total Deductions Subject to LDB ▇▇▇▇-up. If the amount is positive, you owe the LDB ▇▇▇▇-up because your non- sale inventory deductions exceed the LDB shrinkage allowance. The LDB will invoice you to recover the ▇▇▇▇-up value based on the LDB Established Retail Price of the excess volume of the unaccounted movement of inventory. With the submission of your Packaged Product Movement Summary report, you must provide the LDB a listing of all the Warehouses located in British Columbia where you stored any of your Product as at March 31.

Difference. All matters, questions, disputes, differences or claims arising between the Parties as to the effect, interpretation or application of this Agreement or as to their rights, duties or liabilities hereunder, or as to any act, matter or thing arising out of consequent to, or in connection with this Agreement (hereinafter called the Difference’) will be resolved amicably through negotiations. Such negotiations will commence within a period of seven (7) working days of the issue of notice in writing by either party calling for the same (hereinafter called ‘the Notice’).

Difference. This declaration shall be reviewed by an independent auditing firm and attached to the auditor’s report prepared by the said firm. The declaration shall only focus on recyclable containers that have a deposit or should have a deposit according to the Agreement relating to the Deposit, Recovery and Recycling of Non-Refillable Soft Drink Containers effective at the date of the Declaration Agreement of January 1, 2016 entered into and concluded pursuant to the Act respecting the sale and distribution of beer and soft drinks in non-returnable containers Name or Corporate Name of Applicant: Legal Status: ❒ Legal person or Partnership1 ❒ Sole Ownership Quebec Business Number2: Date of Incorporation: Shareholders or Partners: Directors: Executive Officers: 1 If the Applicant is a legal person or a partnership, the Registrant must annex a certified resolution of the directors or of the partners, as the case may be, authorizing the signatory to sign this registration form. 2 Or a copy of the Company’s Incorporation Deed. Mailing Address (if different): List of principal activities of the Applicant (as a percentage of total business volume): The Applicant has a Soft Drink distribution and recovery network for Softs Drink using vehicles principally dedicated for this purpose (check): No ❒ Yes ❒ If Yes, in the following areas: Environment and the Fight against climate change an application to obtain a permit pursuant to the Act respecting the sale and distribution of beer and soft drinks in non-returnable containers.

Difference. The parties recognize that the employees are accountable for ensuring that their performance conforms with published standards. In the event of a difference in professional opinion between an employee and the Manager or a CIC, the employee shall comply with the instructions of the Manager or the CIC who shall assume responsibility for their own decisions.

Difference. LIM Column 1 : 3-2·1 6-!--4: Dom,.s'tie Energy Costs Nat t 1.123.7 1.123.7 0.0 1.164.2 1,207.5 23-.3 Oper.Ung eosts NO:!2 572." 5N.4 (16.0) &75.0 503.0 (12.0) Taxes 146.6 140.6 0.0 t53.!o 153.5 0.0 Depre-ciatton & Amortization No:.~.J 4232 400.4 (14.8) 414.3 300.3 (le.O) Fin.:ln~ Ch~rges No:e.:. 4~5.g 4::-3.0 12·Q) -«;7.4 4662 (11t.2) Return on Equity N<T.!~ 3'-4.9 3~3.0 (l.~) "'3.0 410.0 (3.0) Non~Tariff Revtnue (34.ll) (34.") 0.0 (43.4) (43.4) 0.0. Inter~Segment Rev@nue (fg.l) (5IU) 0.0 (145.") (145.9) 0.0 Defeon-al Accounts Deterral Account Adcti'ti,o(\S SCl~E (77.ei) (f<5.6) 21.7 (23.0) (23.0) 0.0 10 OeterraJ Acco~t Re-covEfieS Ho:e7 69.0 50.0 (311.0) o:!.l tlO.!! ~ 11 Total 11.5 (5.6) (17.3) 38.2 36.7 ll.5) Subsidbry Net Income 1: Powere>: Net Inoom~ (170.8) (170.6) 0.0 (136.0) (136.0) 0.0 13 Pov.~ No;.tIncome (1.01 (1.0) 0.0 (1.3) (1.3\ 0.0. 1< To 1 {lll081 {160 61 00 (13621 f13l!21 0.0 ,. (t7.6) (17.6) 0.0 (16.7) (lll.7) 0.0 2.636.0 2.781.1 (~.g) 2.020.1 2.8gz.0 (~6.11 ~.t1 2,755.2 2,7C5.2 0.0 2.7g1.6 ~.8OQ.2 17.6 117.6) (17.6) 0.0 (18.7\ ~ 0.0 m IS less Other Utilities Rev-em..re Tabl Revenue Require-ment '8 Less OeMr U:ihties Reve'OtiE' 19 T etal Before ▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇ Rate ::'737.6 2,737.6 0.0 Wi] 2.7\10.5 20 Re\lenoi' from 4.0~,% Interim 'Na:i'8 93.4 14.2 (2<1.2) 128." 0.0. (▇▇▇▇.▇▇) 21 Revenue from 1.64% {nere-ase NIXe 3 0.0 8.5 8.5 0.0 4e.7 45.7 22 Reven~ frc.m 2.OC'% Rider S<1.:e:S 0.0 10.04 10.'" 0.0 55.8 55.8 23 Refuod 0.0 141l.0) 149.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2< Re\ien~ S-'..d:>je-t1 to lf1Cf'E-ase 2.83<1.0 2.761.1 I~.O) 2.001.6 2.B;'>2.D (g.6) 20 Revenue ▇▇▇▇▇▇'all 0.0 0.0 0.0 lB.2 0.0 (18.2) Notes: Increase" F200e is due to inc~a5e rll for4!Cast of F20C-S e.nergy sales for ligtr. industrial and commfH'"ciat OE-cr"!ase in F~007 mdudes one--jme furt'l~r red:JC;tion of S 1C·miUm. O.. crea,Sof! in F20D7 ts SO.S mflfion due to capital redudon J:~U5$14.0 miRion due to ehange to ClAC amortizat'on: d~▇▇▇▇▇ in F200e is $2.3 ~ m~lion du~ to caph.11 redo:C'tion plus $1:!.7 million due to ~ in CIAC 3rr.Cortiz.a~ion.

Difference. As a Catholic School, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ makes a difference in the education of young people. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ is the center of our school where emphasis is on religious education and moral development. Consistent, solid discipline, a structured teaching environment, and high standards characterize our school. Our achievement levels are consistently higher than the national average. National public research shows it is the faith community partnership which directly contributes to this achievement. The following sets forth the nature, dynamics and character of the relationship between the School and its students and their parents. This summary will allow both students and parents to clearly understand their rights and obligations while attending ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and it will minimize any potential misunderstandings in this regard. It is understood that by seeking enrollment in and attending ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, the applicants, students and their parents understand and agree to this statement of rights and obligations. It is part of your agreement with the School. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ warmly welcomes all of the students accepted for the coming school year and will work hard to provide them with a Catholic and academic education in a supportive learning environment. It is understood and agreed by the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Ludden’s students, and their parents, that students shall obey our Code of Conduct, observe the rules and regulations and perform the academic work required so as to result in sufficient academic success while attending ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇. It is also understood and agreed that our students attend ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Ludden’s invitation, and not pursuant to any right that a student or parent may possess. The admission to, and continued attendance at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ require students to behave consistent with the Code of Conduct, all other rules and regulations, and in a manner befitting a student of a Catholic institution. These responsibilities exist both inside and outside of the classroom and during all school functions, whether on campus or located elsewhere. In order to protect its standards of academics, discipline and character, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ reserves the right to require the withdrawal of any student at any time, for any reason deemed sufficient in the sole discretion of the School and its administrators. Through their application enrollment into ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, all students and their parents and/or legal guardians, concede and acknowledge that the School has this right. By a stu...

Difference. This is calculated by deducting the ‘Closing Inventory – Calculated’ total from the ‘Closing Inventory – Physical’ total reported on the Product Movement Summary. The shrinkage allowance takes into account an acceptable volume of packaged beverage alcohol that may be consumed or written-off in BC due to normal manufacturing and warehousing activities. By allowing this, a manufacturer does not have to fully document each instance of breakage/destruction which may occur. The rate depends on the annual production volume of the manufacturer. The current rate of the LDB shrinkage allowance is 1.75% of Total Calculated Product Moved in BC for the annual production of wine-other products and 0.50% for cider and cooler products' annual production. This portion of the Product Movement Summary calculates the Total Deductions Subject to LDB ▇▇▇▇-up. If the amount is positive, you owe the LDB ▇▇▇▇-up because your non-sale inventory deductions exceed the LDB shrinkage allowance. The LDB will invoice you to recover the ▇▇▇▇-up value based on the LDB Established Retail Price of the excess volume of the unaccounted movement of inventory.

Difference. The next phase of the Accord, ▇▇▇▇ III to ▇▇▇▇ V from 1987 until 1990 I call the phase of difference.9 The union movement was smarting, but remained supportive of the Accord at the peak level. The two-tier award system was introduced by the decision the created the Accord ▇▇▇▇ III. The basic premise behind the policies was that the government committed itself to substantial cuts in personal income tax and increases in family welfare in return for productivity based wage restraint (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1994:208). ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1988:59) quotes the ACTU President ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ as stating in 1986 that “the Accord carries with it an aura of consensus and agreement. Properly promoted, I think that allows people to become aware of the good things that unions are doing”. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ defended the Accord in an interview stating that the Accords had created gains in terms of the “protection of, and even the extension of, the living standards of the lowest paid” (Aarons & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1988/9:22). Between the years of 1988 and 1991, the structural efficiency principle of the Arbitration Commission required all unions (and employers) to commit to industry level negotiations to restructure their awards (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1995:227). The deals were still done in the context of the centralised wage fixing system. So, however distasteful to those at the receiving end of the delays in improving the real standard of living, they still adhered to the principles of corporatism as labourism, as per the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ argument. This did not deter the growing ranks of critics, who on social democratic grounds had added their voices to the critics in the hard left. Most importantly, the much heralded industry policy was not in place in what has been termed the sunrise industries of telecommunications, and aerospace (▇▇▇▇, 1996:3). In an effort to achieve industry policy through other means, the Accord was re-drafted four times with no major policy shifts but with the added focus of award restructuring and training reform (▇▇▇▇ 1996:3). Australia Reconstructed, adopted as ACTU policy at the 1987 biennial congress was being put into practice, and also renewed concern with industry development. This policy stated that Australian unions should continue to develop and formulate policy under the umbrella of the ACTU (ACTU, 1987: 189). However, relations between the ACTU and the government were strained, and to make the situation worse, the government had publicly supported a wage raise of 11% for parliamentarians (▇...