Reasoning Clause Samples
The 'Reasoning' clause sets out the requirement for parties to provide explanations or justifications for certain actions, decisions, or positions taken under the agreement. In practice, this clause may require a party to detail the rationale behind a decision to terminate, modify, or enforce specific terms, ensuring that such actions are not arbitrary. By mandating transparency and accountability, the clause helps prevent misunderstandings and disputes by making the basis for key decisions clear to all parties involved.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Reasoning. The Provider has agreed to provide ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bloggs with accommodation and care services under a Tenancy and a Care Agreement. ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bloggs will become personally liable for the fees due under these agreements. In consideration for you agreeing to sign the Guarantee, the Provider will oblige by the terms of the Tenancy and Care Agreement. Should any fees under the agreements remain due and unpaid, the Provider can demand payment from you personally. This makes ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bloggs’s placement financially viable should they become unable to pay the fees due under the Tenancy Agreement and/or the Care Agreement.
Reasoning. The Min-max interface agreement has a better performance with respect to the EBO and fill rate due to the fact the decision to give parts higher priority is based on the number of parts in repair. In the Lead-time model, the decision to give parts an emergency lead-time is based on the number of orders which does not have a due-date within the emergency lead-time. The value of the latter one is always equal
Reasoning. The franchising agreement is an ongoing relationship characterized by dependence of the franchisee on the franchisor, which imposes a high expectation of good faith. In this case, ARG depended on Provigo for most of its supplies. Provigo had the contractual right to control prices, to change their strategy (discount stores), to compete with itself, and so they are not at fault for these things. However, the franchisor has an implicit obligation to collaborate with franchisees, and either make new techniques or supports (pricing, advertising) available or at least act to minimize harm to the franchisee’s interests. Provigo violated this obligation.
Reasoning. To find out if a MF fulfill a user interest means to find out if this user interest (UI) is semantically entailed by the eMFAs of this video and the LUMO-rel ontology. Depending on the concrete shape of the used LUMO-rel ontology, the eMFA, and user interests the reasoning techniques used to determine entailment can be kept simple and efficient.
Reasoning. The term “debt relief agency” under the Bank- ruptcy Code, applies to attorneys, but only those assisting con- sumer debtors who are contemplating bankruptcy. The Code FDCPA DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPLICIT DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
Reasoning. The Ad-hoc committee poled many of the Tech's and all thought that the course was redundant due to the amount of math required to pass the ACT and the entry exam. However, It is optional, if a tech wants to take more math the course is available upon request.
Reasoning. NTSA Parties may request a small percentage of their non-Treaty storage purposely to assure that their release was not spilled. If another NTSA Party then requests a much larger percentage of its non-Treaty storage that does cause spill, the NTSA Party making the large percentage request should be responsible for the excess spill caused by their request. For this reason, the unspilled portion of a NTSA release is allocated equally between the U.S. and B.C. Hydro and the U.S. Parties will be divided Pro Rata among releasing U.S. Parties, which automatically assigns the spill to the NTSA Parties requesting the largest percentage of their non-Treaty storage. This allocation will be done based on the day average values resulting from the usability determination. If two or more NTSA Parties are releasing and spill occurs, the determination of whose release was converted to energy and whose release was spilled will be determined as follows:
(1) Using the Usability criteria, determine how much of the release was not spilled (i.e., was generated).
(2) The generated portion of the release shall be allocated between B.C. Hydro and the U.S. If either party's release was smaller than their after-the-fact allocation of the generated portion, said party shall be owed energy for its entire release and all the remaining generated portion of the release shall be allocated to the other party up to the amount of their request. This language produces the same result as the language in the NTS Agreement, but is simpler to understand, particularly when the allocation is among NTSA Parties with various sized shares.
Reasoning. The Elizabeth Vale Central shopping centre is made up of two titles, comprising a car park on one title and a car park and shopping centre on the other. It is being proposed that SA Health purchase the property for This indicates that SA Health would be paying a premium for the properties. Having existing tenants with leases in the shopping centre ranging up to 2021/22 is likely one of the reasons for this. Initially, SA Health may allow those leases to continue and also continue to receive money from the long term car parking arrangements. However, SA Health’s intentions in purchasing the property are to redevelop it into something else entirely. This may not rule out some of the existing car parks or tenants from remaining there later. There is an ability for some sales to be treated as the sale of a going concern, which would mean the sale could be treated as GSTFREE. I have reviewed GSTR 2002/5 Goods and services tax: when is a 'supply of a going concern' GST‐ free? and feel paragraph 24 may cover the lease component of the sale. The paragraph talks about a small retail shopping centre, which we are dealing with here.
Reasoning. Aid from public funds in the GESHER/MOST Programme is designated for supporting international cooperation projects in applied research1 and experimental development2 approved by a Joint Committee established pursuant to Article III(3) of the Agreement. Funds from the GESHER/MOST Programme will be used for the payment of costs related to the implementation of selected international applied research and experimental development projects. Pursuant to S. 2(2)(j) of the Act on the Support of Research, Experimental Development and Innovations an applicant for institutional aid from the GESHER/MOST Programme may only be a company defined in Part 2.2(a) and (b) of the Community Framework; if need be, in cooperation with a public higher education institution, public research institution and/or other research entities that may be qualified as research organisations pursuant to Article 2.2(d) of the Community Framework. However, the above institutions as such cannot become applicants for institutional aid. The motivational effect of the institutional aid of the GESHER/MOST Programme involves targeted support of activities pursued mainly by small and medium-sized enterprises in the field of applied research and experimental development at international level. This supports enhancing of competitive skills of most notably small and medium-sized enterprises, balances their access to the development of modern technologies and/or products (small and medium- sized enterprises have a more difficult access to new knowledge, which is one of their structural disadvantages) and contributes to the development of the above enterprises in the field of bilateral cooperation in research, experimental development and innovations. Tax measures supporting the implementation of research and development3 are the most efficient ones for large enterprises, which may pursue research in their own research capacities and which are financially strong enough to fund the whole research from their own resources (a surplus income tax payment is returned retroactively for the previous calendar year), are able to bear the risks related to failure and a decrease in their tax base is essential for them. However, small and medium-sized enterprises prefer direct aid granted for individual projects. Without the above aid a number of projects would not be implemented at all or would be implemented in a significantly smaller scope. So as to ensure the motivational effect of the aid, implementation of a proj...
Reasoning. This Order is issued based on evidence of continued significant community transmission of COVID-19 within the County and throughout the Bay Area; continued uncertainty regarding the degree of undetected asymptomatic transmission; scientific evidence and best practices regarding the most effective approaches to slow the transmission of communicable diseases generally and COVID-19 specifically; evidence that the age, condition, and health of a significant portion of the population of the County places it at risk for serious health complications, including death, from COVID-19; and further evidence that others, including younger and otherwise healthy people, are also at risk for serious outcomes. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 disease in the general public, which is now a pandemic according to the World Health Organization, there is a public health emergency throughout the County. Making the problem worse, some individuals who contract the virus causing the COVID-19 disease have no symptoms or have mild symptoms, which means they may not be aware they carry the virus and are transmitting it to others. Further, evidence shows that the virus can survive for hours to days on surfaces and be indirectly transmitted between individuals. Because even people without symptoms can transmit the infection, and because evidence shows the infection is easily spread, gatherings and other direct or indirect interpersonal interactions can result in preventable transmission of the virus.