HELD Sample Clauses

HELD. Red Steer shall issue two separate checks for the penalty payment: (a) one check made payable to OEHHA in the amount of $2,250.00 representing 75% of the total penalty; and (b) one check to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Xxxxxxx X.. Held” in the amount of $750.00 representing 25% of the total penalty. Two separate 1099s shall be issued for the above payments. The checks and 1099s shall be delivered to the addresses listed in Section 3.3 below.
HELD. Appeal allowed. Decision of the judge is set aside. Judgment is entered for the appellant on its Defence. Costs of the appeal and in the court below are awarded to the appellant to be taxed if not agreed. It seems to us that the inclusion of a document in an agreed trial bundle in accordance with Supreme Court Practice Direction No. 2 means that it is admitted in evidence before the judge by agreement, without the party wishing to rely on it having to call a witness to formally produce it or to authenticate it. That said, it is obvious that while the document is undeniably in evidence by consent, its relevance and significance to the issues-in-dispute will usually only become evident when witnesses who are called to testify at the trial are referred to the document and give secondary evidence about its contents. Sections 41 and 43(e) respectively of the Evidence Act, permit secondary evidence of a document to be given, inter alia, through oral accounts of the contents of a document given by a witness who has seen the document. The fact that a specific document relied on by one party is contained in an agreed trial bundle, however, does not, prevent the other party from making a formal objection at the start of the trial to its contents being used or referred to witnesses in the course of the trial. However, advance notice of any objection should be given to the party wishing to rely on such a document so that the party relying on it will be alerted in advance of the trial of the necessity to call the maker of the document to authenticate it and give direct evidence as to its contents. However, if (as occurred in the court below) no such objection is taken before the commencement of the trial, and a specific document in the agreed bundle is used and oral testimony given (without objection) by witnesses who have seen it, the contents of the document are undeniably proved by secondary evidence as provided in sections 41 and 43(e) of the Act. In the circumstances of this particular trial in which the contents of the DPH Summary and the other documents in the agreed bundle were utilized and referred to (without objection) during the testimony of the various witnesses, it was not only unreasonable, but unfair and plainly wrong for the learned judge to uphold Xx. Xxxxx’x objection made in his Closing Address that the DPH Summary was inadmissible hearsay on the basis that the author of the Summary and the attending doctors at the Flamingo Clinic who treated Xxx. X...
HELD. The Court held that:
HELD. The term “charge” is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, taking into account the Act’s overall objectives of consumer protection against hidden costs, the parties are required to quantify the charge and specify the manner in which it is to be paid when they determine their contractual terms and conclude the credit agreement. However, the profit shares, as envisioned by the parties, had no fixed repayment date, were not guaranteed and ran the possibility of not eventuating. Furthermore, as the amount was to be determined by the Appellant at his sole discretion, the profit share also failed to meet the requirement of fixed quantification. Thus, said profit share did not qualify as a charge under the Act. As a result, the loans did not amount to credit agreements, in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act, as no charges were attached to them. As such, the Respondent was not required to register as a credit provider. The Court upheld the decision of the court a quo, holding that the cheques in repayment of a loan are exempted from the operation of the Act and that the Respondent was entitled to invoke the provisional sentence procedure to enforce his claims.
HELD allowing the appeal and awarding costs to the appellant in the High Court and in the appeal: The parties made Article 4.3.2 of the agreement a condition precedent to arbitration. The question whether the Claim was time-barred and prescribed raised an issue of procedural arbitrability, which rule 8(a) of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association puts within the purview of the arbitrator. Since the respondent, DCG Properties, unsuccessfully challenged the arbitrator’s assumption of jurisdiction in the dispute, and did not appeal the arbitrator’s decision through the arbitral appeal process, the High Court should not have entertained a case which DCG Properties brought on the same issue. That litigation occasioned the court to make a conflicting decision to that of the arbitrator on the same grounds as DCG Properties had unsuccessfully challenged the arbitration. Saint Lucia has a strong public policy in favour of arbitration which the Arbitration Act exemplifies. The court, in support of that policy, should cause parties to act in accordance with the processes provided by that Act. Xxxxx Xxxxxx v Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (10 December 2002) Contec Corporation v Remote Solutions Co. Ltd., 398 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2005), adopted. JUDGMENT [1] XXXXXXX, X.X.: The outcome of this appeal hinges on the interpretation of certain clauses contained in a contract between the parties in this appeal, which relate to claims and arbitration. Contractual provisions [2] The grounds of appeal, which will be set out later in this judgment, mirror some of the provisions that the agreement between the parties contain, which counsel for White Construction urged us to consider in the appeal. Other provisions were referred to in the submissions by both counsel. I set out their contents at this juncture in order to put this appeal into the contractual context. [3] The contractual provisions to which counsel referred us are Articles 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 13.1.1, 13.3.1, 13.4.2 and 13.7.1.
HELD. Such employee may also displace a less senior employee (utilizing total City seniority) in another department in a classification which the employee has previously held and performed in a satisfactory manner.
HELD. (1) Xxxxxx was acting as complete stranger to the contract between Xxxxxxxxx and Dew and thus on account of privity of contract couldn’t xxx Xxxxxxxxx for breach of its agreement with Dew. It was a mere beneficiary to it on account of Price Maintenance Clause.
HELD. On receipt of a request <Ti, pi> at pj (i ≠ j) if (state = HELD or (state = WANTED and (T, pj) < (Ti, pi))) then queue request from pi without replying; else reply immediately to pi; end if To exit the critical section state := RELEASED; reply to any queued requests; Lehrstuhl für Informatik 4 Kommunikation und verteilte Systeme A Token Ring Algorithm Completely different algorithm: • Construct a logical ring from all processes, with each process knows the successor • On initialising, process 0 gets a token, which circulates around the ring • Having the token, a process is allowed once to enter a critical region. After leaving it, the token is passed on • Advantages: no synchronisation delay, no starvation, no deadlocks • Problems: no real-world ordering of entry requests, token loss, token duplication, process crashes, maintenance of the current ring configuration Lehrstuhl für Informatik 4 Kommunikation und verteilte Systeme Comparison Algorithm Messages per entry/exit Delay before entry (in message times) Problems Centralized 3 2 Coordinator crash Distributed 2 ( n – 1 ) 2 ( n – 1 ) Crash of any process Token ring 1 to ∞ 0 to n – 1 Lost token, process crash The centralised algorithm seems to be best... Lehrstuhl für Informatik 4 Kommunikation und verteilte Systeme Maekawa's Voting Algorithm It is not necessary to have a permission from all processes before entering a critical region; permissions are only needed from subsets (which have to have overlaps) Associate a voting set Vi with each process pi, where Vi ⊆ {p1, p2, ..., pN} so that for all i,j = 1, 2, ..., N • pi ∈ Vi • Vi ∩ Vj ≠∅ (no disjunctive sets) • |Vi| = K (each set has same size) • each pj is contained in M of the voting sets (optimal solution with minimal K: K ~ N-1, M = K) [non-trivial problem: how to calculate the optimal sets?] It works, because by Vi ∩ Vj ≠∅ there is one process in the intersection only voting for a process in one of the subsets.
HELD. Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part. The interpretation of net sale proceeds was not an issue before the judge. The judge erred in interpreting the net profit definition. The definition was clear and unambiguous. The judge should not have substituted his interpretation, which was inconsistent with the language of the clause. If mortgage and loan interest was a non-recovered cost, the clause would have mentioned it. Court Summary: On appeal from the Judgments of Justice Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 15, 2005 and June 2, 2005. Counsel: Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx for Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxx Printing Inc. and 1035353 Ontario Limited Xxxxx X. Xxxxx for Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Independent Life Services Ltd. and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx for Xxxx Xxxxx ENDORSEMENT The following judgment was delivered by ¶ 1 THE COURT (endorsement):ó This litigation involves Mink Printing Inc. and 1035353 Ontario Limited, each of which owns a commercial real estate property in Toronto (the "Owners"), their principals (Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxx), and several persons who invested in the two properties (the "Investor Group"). The individual members of the Investor Group are related to Xxxx Xxxxx'x husband.
HELD. Action allowed. The counterclaim was dismissed. The defendants were ordered to pay the amounts owing under the agreement. Damages of $18,000 were awarded for the failure to deliver all of the required shares to Fraser. Fraser's remedy for the defendants' default was not limited to executing upon the security. The settlement established a security and stated that if that security was called upon, liability for the shortfall was limited. Such wording did not prevent Xxxxxx from declin- ing to execute upon the security. The unius est exclusio alterius maxim did not apply, since the set- tlement did not specify two options that were to apply upon default. The settlement was clear as to what the defendants' obligations were, and the defendants failed to fulfill these obligations. Xxxxxx gave the defendants notice of the default. Xxxxxx'x activity of selling his shares had no significant impact upon the share value in the relevant period. Although Xxxxxx failed to use his best efforts to obtain a release, as required by the settlement, there was no evidence that the defendants sustained damages as a result. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: