Distinction Clause Samples
The 'Distinction' clause serves to clearly differentiate between specific terms, concepts, or parties within a contract. It typically outlines how certain words or roles are to be interpreted, ensuring that similar or potentially confusing elements are not conflated. For example, it may clarify the difference between 'services' and 'products' or distinguish between the responsibilities of two different parties. This clause's core function is to prevent misunderstandings and disputes by providing precise definitions and boundaries, thereby ensuring clarity throughout the agreement.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 2 times
Distinction. A release agreement which extinguishes rights, is distinct from a pactum de non pe- 3 tendum, i.e. an undertaking not to pursue certain rights for a certain time.12
Article 5.2.1 (Contracts in favour of third parties)
(1) The parties (the “promisor” and the “promisee”) may confer by express or im- plied agreement a right on a third party (the “beneficiary”).
(2) The existence and content of the beneficiary’s right against the promisor are de- termined by the agreement of the parties and are subject to any conditions or other limitations under the agreement.
A. Concentration on Contracts in Favour of Third Parties
2.1 goes beyond the ‘princi- 1 ple of relativity of contracts’ (Art. 1.3 sentence 1).2 Para. 1 documents,3 at the top of ▇▇▇-
Distinction. For the purposes of this paragraph 27 only, Agency material (see paragraph 72) shall be deemed to include ad lib acts or utterances of personnel furnished by Agency or Advertiser, and NBC material shall be deemed to include material furnished by NBC as referred to in paragraph 6 and ab lib acts and utterances of personnel furnished by NBC and material furnished by other agencies or advertisers for the telecasts. NBC's acceptance or approval of Agency material will not affect Agency's obligation for defense and indemptficaiton hereunder. (0489)
Distinction. For clarification, an Activity which has a Low Native Title Impact will not be an Activity which has a High Native Title Impact.
Distinction. The case of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ was critical to the law of targeting at the ICTY due to the judges’ acceptance and incorporation of the offence of unlawfully attacking civilians. The Blaškić Trial Judges accepted that this offence was within their jurisdiction despite the fact that it was not specifically included in Article 3 of the ICTY Statute. The Blaškić Trial Judges could have refused to accept this innovation on the part of the OTP. The trial judgement also, however, contained a telling sentence that can be seen to demonstrate a shift that had taken place in the law since the Second World War and was confirmed by the work of the ICTY. This sentence was: Targeting civilians or civilian property is an offence when not justified by military necessity.1 The response to this statement demonstrated that the system of precedent adopted by the ICTY was fully functional.2 It was quickly distinguished by the Galić Trial Judges3 and clearly corrected by the Appeals Chamber to reflect the fact that the law was now understood to be that targeting civilians could not be justified for any reason.4 More importantly for the content of the law of targeting, it also demonstrated the level of the change in the rules governing the protection of civilians which was fully accepted by the ICTY judges and promoted by the work of the ICTY.