LIMITING LIABILITY Sample Clauses

LIMITING LIABILITY a) The Parties decide that all liability arising from the failure to perform or the incorrect performance of the Agreement or of these General Terms of Agreement or conditions connected with the Agreement or the General Terms of Agreement towards the Client, the Company shall bear exclusively in keeping with the principles defined under this point and under point 12. b) No decision under these General Terms of Agreement or Agreement excludes or limits the liability of the Company for death or injury caused by Company neglect or misleading. c) The level of any compensation due to the Client from the Company shall be limited to the price of Goods supplied to the Client by the Company, subject to verification of these prices. d) The Company shall not be liable in any way whatsoever towards the Client in terms of any losses whatsoever or damages caused by the Client indirectly in connection with the Agreement.

LIMITING LIABILITY. 9.1 Subject to clause 9.3 but notwithstanding any other term in this Agreement and to the extent permitted by statute, neither party will in any circumstances be liable for any: (a) indirect, consequential, incidental, special or exemplary damages, expenses, losses or liabilities; or (b) loss of profits, business interruption, loss of revenue, economic loss, loss of goodwill, loss of opportunity or expectation loss or loss of production, which may be suffered or incurred by any person, including in respect of the Works or otherwise in connection with this Agreement. 9.2 Subject to Clause 9.3, the aggregate liability of a party to the other party in respect of events, acts or omissions arising during any Contract Year will be limited, to the extent permitted by statute, to the amount paid by the Customer for the Works in that Contract Year, to the extent such liability is incurred under, in relation to, or in connection with this Agreement (including Programmed’s performance or non-performance). The following are “Contract Years” within the meaning of this clause: (a) the period commencing on the date of this Agreement and concluding on the first anniversary of that date; and (b) each subsequent 12 month period commencing on each anniversary of the date of this Agreement. 9.3 The limitations of liability in clauses 9.1 and 9.2 do not apply to limit or exclude any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with: 9.3.1 any liability arising due to a party's fraud or wilful misconduct; 9.3.2 any liability arising due to a party's infringement of the intellectual property of any third party; 9.3.3 any liability arising due to a party's breach of their confidentiality obligations; and/or 9.3.4 Customer’s obligation to make payment for Works.

LIMITING LIABILITY. (a) Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the application or the protection of the EUA or LPR. (b) In no event shall the Service Provider’s liability to the AESO for any direct damages, whether based in in contract, tort, or otherwise exceed (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000), or (ii) the total amount of Monthly Payments received by the Service Provider under this Agreement, whichever amount is greater. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall limit the Service Provider’s liability to the AESO for any damages caused by the Service Provider’s gross negligence, wilful misconduct, or breach of Sections 9.1 – 9.9.

LIMITING LIABILITY. Although we hesitate to even suggest that there exists some contractual equivalent of a panacea for the countless ways in which a termination provision may run afoul of employment standards legislation, many employers use what are colloquially referred to as “savings clauses” to great effect. These provisions are typically included as part of a termination provision, but can also be found at the beginning or end of a contract of employment with no real difference in impact. A savings clause simply guarantees that the employee will always receive his minimum entitlements under employment standards legislation, and that if there should be a discrepancy between the terms of the contract and the terms of the legislation, the legislation will always prevail. The practical impact of this is that, even where a termination provision may technically falter, a savings clause can be used to argue that the contract still guarantees that the employee will receive his minimum entitlements and is, therefore, enforceable. While a savings clause can be quite an effective defence against a claim that the contract (or a contractual provision) is unenforceable because it contravenes employ- ment standards legislation, it obviously cannot assist an employer in every scenario. For example, where an employer breaches the terms of its own contract, there is some case law that suggests that the employer is thereafter prevented from relying upon its provisions in order to deprive the employee of some greater right or benefit. Similarly, if an employer makes the provision of an employee’s statutory minimum entitlements subject to a condition precedent—for example, if the employee will not be paid her minimum entitlements until she has executed a release—the termination provision may be found to be null and void.8 The courts can even order that the employer pay further damages for “bad faith dismissals,” regardless of the existence of a savings provision or ironclad termination clause.9 Unfortunately, even a clear and enforceable termination provision cannot com- pletely mitigate against employer liability. For example, an employer must ensure that any employment contract reserves the employer’s right to make reasonable changes to the terms or parameters of the employee’s position without constituting a con- structive dismissal. Otherwise, an employer’s decision to relocate an employee, remove or change parts of a benefits plan, or to make any other seemingly innocuous change to the ...

LIMITING LIABILITY. To the maximum extent, permitted in accordance with applicable law, the Lessor is not responsible for the tenant, but the lease agreements that should not approve the claim against the Lessor, in accordance with the legal theory, whether on the way on the basis of a contract, neglect, neglect, delicate , strict liability or otherwise granted by law or law, (i) for any random, special, exemplary, indirect or right of such damages or (ii) damage related to this contract or arising in accordance with this contract, which exceeds the fees Actually paid by the Lessor in accordance with this contract. The tenant of the current one refuses all statements that these exceptions deprive him of an adequate legal protection measure or forces this contract to the unsuccessful in their main purpose. The parties, currently confirm and agree that all refusal to guarantee and limit the provisions regarding the obligation described above has been agreed and are the basic elements of the foundation of this contract.

LIMITING LIABILITY. (a) Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the application or the protection of the EUA or LPR. (b) In no event shall a Party’s liability to the other Party for any direct damages, whether based in contract, tort, or otherwise exceed: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000), or (ii) the total amount of Monthly Payments received by the Service Provider under this Agreement, whichever amount is greater. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall limit the Service Provider’s liability to the AESO for any damages caused by the Service Provider’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, or breach of Sections 9.1 – 9.8.

LIMITING LIABILITY. Contractor’s liability shall not exceed the greater of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) or three times (3x) the total purchase price under this Agreement, including amendments and change orders. In no event will Contractor be liable to State for special, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages including lost profits, lost savings or lost revenues of any kind unless Contractor was advised of the possibility of such loss or damage or unless such loss